Blogger To Challenge GOP Stealth Candidate

A week ago I linked to news from blogger Joshua Sharf of a stealth GOP candidate, anti-Israeli non-conservative Rima Barakat Sinclair, and joined in calling for others to step up and challenge her positions and prevent the nomination from becoming automatic.

Well, Joshua himself has taken up the challenge and declared himself a candidate for Colorado House District 6:

So, after casting about for a candidate to challenge Rima Barakat Sinclair, a candidate who’s a legitimate conservative, reasonably articulate, with a history in the party, and a record of promoting free markets, personal liberty, and limited government, a group of us has finally hit on…er, me.

Yes, I’ll be spending my summer just about the last way I thought I would, petitioning on to the ballot to force a primary, and then going on to represent the party in the fall election.

No, the blog’s not going away. If anything, it’s going to become more important, as a sounding board for ideas and issues. And as important as this race is to me, what profiteth it man if he gain the nomination and lose his personality?

If you’d like to contribute time or, eventually, money, drop me a line here or at my email, jsharf@jsharf.com, and you can be plenty sure I’ll get back to you.

The adventure begins.

Fellow blogger Ben DeGrow has already endorsed Joshua, and I will add my own words of support.

Joshua’s blog may serve as an initial introduction, but from my own personal experience he is a man of integrity, strong conservative principles, and an outstanding GOP candidate. His economic knowledge is extensive (as you will discover on his blog), but his wit and insight reveal an intelligent and circumspect individual–a rarity among candidates on either side of the aisle.

As Ben points out, House District 6 is a Democrat stronghold–this is House Speaker Rep. Andrew Romanoff’s seat, after all (he’s term-limited)–so this isn’t about politics.

It’s about principles.

If you are so inclined, you should drop Joshua an email. What he needs now are “boots on the ground” to collect signatures in HD-6 (you have to a registered Republican).

Good luck to Joshua. I’ll keep you updated as his campaign progresses.

Here is a look at State House District 6, smack dab in the center of Denver County (click to enlarge):

Rocky Mountain News Endorses The Blogger Protection Act Of 2008, And You Should Too

Freedom of speech may cost you dearly if you blog–you could find yourself subject to campaign finance law regulating “public communications.”

Fortunately, in a surprising editorial from an MSM source, the Rocky Mountain News endorses the forthcoming Blogger Protection Act and addresses why, with the First Amendment, it should even be needed:

Maybe you’re thinking of setting up your own blog to comment on the affairs of the day. By all means, join the fray. But please make sure you don’t run afoul of a judge who considers your opinions a political contribution that should be regulated by federal campaign law.

We’re not joking. This nation that so enshrines free expression still hasn’t decided for certain whether bloggers should have the same leeway that, ahem, newspaper editorials and other traditional forms of opinion enjoy. Fortunately, Congress will soon have an opportunity to give Web blogs more durable First Amendment protection.

In the coming days, Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Tex., is set to introduce The Blogger Protection Act of 2008. The bill would enact in law regulations that were handed down two years ago by the Federal Election Commission regarding bloggers and campaign finance laws.

The FEC has twice attempted to protect Internet users from the strictures of campaign law, as it has exempted newspapers, broadcasters and other more traditional media outlets. But because these rules have been reversed once by a federal judge and could be overturned in another legal challenge or by a future FEC, a statute is needed. We hope the Blogger Protection Act becomes law.

The reason the FEC got involved to begin with was – you guessed it – the deeply flawed McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. That act regulates “anything of value used to influence an election,” including “public communications.” This lets the government determine whether a particular form of communication is either a contribution or an expenditure and subject to the limits of the finance law.

So does that mean a blogger who posts some snarky comment about John McCain’s age or Hillary Clinton’s hairdo is making a contribution to an opponent’s campaign? How would such a message be valued in monetary terms? By the number of hits the page receives? By the number of comments posted by readers?

It shouldn’t be. And in 2002, the FEC seemed to resolve the problem when it exempted from the law pretty much any information transmitted over the Internet.

The fact that the issue remains unresolved is most troubling, but since this has effects for all corners of the blogosphere, both left and right, it should be easy to build momentum for the bill.

What is amazing is that we need to debate this at all. The FEC and the courts have no place in regulating politically-related speech on blogs. We applaud the RMN’s lead in bringing awareness of the issue, at least for Colorado’s political community and especially its bloggers.

Blogs 4 Borders Video Blogburst 033108

Freedom Folks has this week’s latest.

Titanic Battle Rages On As Democrats Race Toward DNC

No, not Hillary Clinton vs. Barack Obama. An identity battle.

“The Democratic Wild West at Denver”//Edward Windsor Kemble//Harper’s Weekly//July 4, 1908, pp. 18-19

It seems that Democrats can’t quite decide just exactly how the Democratic National Convention host city should be marketed:

How to portray the West?

For a party hoping to pick up the battleground states of Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico, Denver’s selection as host of the 2008 Democratic National Convention offers plenty of positives. But focusing on Old West symbols to appeal to rural voters risks alienating the many metro-area residents who are more at home on a bicycle or a scooter than on a horse riding the range.

“Yes, I sense a tension,” said Mark Squier, the producer responsible for crafting the political messages displayed inside the Pepsi Center, where the convention is to be held. “It’s going to be a bit of a tightrope walk, balancing off the new and the old of the West.”

A crystallizing example of the tension occurred this month in a heated, behind-the-scenes dispute between officials with Denver’s host committee — the locals responsible for bringing the convention to town — and the major sponsor of the event’s biggest party, the so-called Media Welcoming Party.

Mindful of the power of Old West symbols, U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette of Denver wanted to stage an exhibition rodeo during the party. U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, a ranch owner from the San Luis Valley usually seen in boots and a white Stetson, wanted a cattle-drive parade like the one that begins the annual National Western Stock Show.

William Dean Singleton, publisher of The Denver Post and chief executive of MediaNews Group Inc., one of the nation’s largest newspaper chains, threatened to pull his financial support from the media party, saying he didn’t want the media’s first impression of Denver to be that of a “cow town,” several sources familiar with the dispute confirmed.

And I thought that the Democrats had bigger problems to be worried about.

I guess not.

Besides, Westword has been using a cow on its annual “Best of Denver” issue for years.

When Howard Dean led the call for naming Denver the site of 2008’s DNC, it was with an eye to repositioning the Democrat’s “brand”–something distinct and in-touch with voters inside the more “metropolitan” coasts–and not a simple rehash of East and Left-coast liberalism or its associated imagery. This was to be the opportunity for choosing a candidate at the foot of those “purple mountains’majesty” in an increasingly “purple” state.

When the local hosting committee can’t agree on what “message” will be conveyed–how the host city will be framed from a marketing viewpoint to the residents of that same city–one detects that like their rival candidates’ struggle for the nomination, there is a battle raging within the party at a much deeper level, something they don’t want to admit. Nice to see that it is not just the Republicans who are experiencing a bit of an identity crisis.

As we can see from the cartoon nearly a century ago, not much has changed in the way of perceptions in the 100 years since the city last hosted the Democrats’ nominating convention. Denver may still be a “cow town” in many ways, but she won’t be a one-trick pony.

Drunkablog has a similar take, and notes that Recreate ‘68 may do some “branding” all on its own.

"Earth Hour" Futility, Google Hypocrisy Revealed

**Update–Earth Hour Denver timelapse and video:

As you can tell, not much was turned off. About the only participants in Denver were the Hard Rock Cafe and the Denver Convention and Performing Arts Center:

The Hard Rock dimmed lights inside and out. It was joined by the Virgin Megastore and Lucky Strike Lanes, which turned off their huge neon signs. Meanwhile, the marquee of the nearby Paramount Theater shone bright.

The Paramount wasn’t alone, as businesses up and down the mall, both big and small, kept lights blazing, operating in the dark when it came to Earth Hour.

However, nonessential lights were turned off in the City and County Building, the Wellington Webb Municipal Building and the Denver Performing Arts Complex.

And at the Northfield Stapleton shopping center, some restaurants planned to serve customers by candlelight.
. . .
Power savings in the Denver area were expected to be modest. Xcel Energy said that lighting accounts for about 7 percent of home energy use, so that savings from people turning off lights will be only a portion of 7 percent, depending on how many households participate.

That’ll stave off climate change. But it’s the gesture that counts, right?

As I read on another blog (and can’t remember where), we each voluntarily perform “Earth Hour” every night–by going to bed and turning off the lights and electronics inside the house.

This pathetically empty symbolic gesture achieves nothing more than assuaging global warmenist guilt. If it were really that important, these measures would become mandatory. How long is it before “Earth Hour” observations become energy controls, with fines and punishment for profligate consumers (except the limousine liberals, of course)?

Wait. I shouldn’t be giving them any ideas . . .

---

“We applaud the spirit of the idea, but our own analysis as well as that of others shows that making the Google homepage black will not reduce energy consumption. To the contrary, on flat-panel monitors (already estimated to be 75% of the market), displaying black may actually increase energy usage. Detailed results from a new study confirm this”–Google, on turning its screen black, which it is doing once again for “Earth Hour”

Earth Hour’s site is currently running slowly, no doubt due to traffic:

Moonbattery highlights Google’s hypocrisy and black-screen futility–the color change saves no energy, as Google itself admits:

Reducing climate change by saving energy is an important effort we should all join, and that’s why we’re very glad to see the innovative thinking going into a variety of solutions. One idea, suggested by the site called “Blackle” (which is not related to Google, by the way, though the site does use our custom search engine), is to reduce energy used by monitors by providing search with a black background. We applaud the spirit of the idea, but our own analysis as well as that of others shows that making the Google homepage black will not reduce energy consumption. To the contrary, on flat-panel monitors (already estimated to be 75% of the market), displaying black may actually increase energy usage. Detailed results from a new study confirm this.

The Drunkablog has a fun bunch of links to Tim Blair (from down under, who is tracking the event around the world), who is combatting “Earth Hour” moonbattery with the “Hour of Power”, and a roundup of local MSM cheerleading coverage.

Ed Morrissey has much more on Google’s hypocrisy at Hot Air.

Earth Hour’s “Ten Things to do in the Dark” (annotated):

Host a Green Party

Get your friends together for an Earth Hour eco-party. Fire up the flashlights and battery lanterns, serve organic food, avoid the disposable utensils, use natural décor (like flowers and hanging plants) and have a friend provide acoustic music. Talk to your guests about how you’re each reducing your environmental footprint and share ideas and solutions for saving more energy, money and carbon dioxide.
–Yes, have all of your friends DRIVE to your EH eco-party. Be sure to have them charge those batteries ahead of time–you are using rechargeables, aren’t you?

Give Yourself an Energy Makeover

Use Earth Hour to make your home more energy efficient: Replace your old light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs; install power strips (so you can turn computers and electronics on and off more easily); and change your air conditioner filters. Or go one step farther and install one new energy-efficient item, like an EnergyStar qualified DVD player. And on Monday, call your local utility and sign up for green power—like wind, hydro or solar.
–Replace incandescents with CFLs–and don’t worry about all that harmful mercury. Make sure to find the most expensive alternative source of energy–you are committed, aren’t you?

Go Green with Your Kids

Earth Hour is a perfect time to talk to your kids about the environment and why we need to protect our planet from the dangers of climate change. Check out books on the environment from the library and read by flashlight, or head into the yard and have a night picnic. Or how about a night of board games? There are even Earth Hour kids’ activities you can download at www.earthhour.org.
–Indoctrinate the future polluters Educate your kids, and make sure they properly fear climate change. Al Gore says so.

Do a Recyclables Scavenger Hunt

Get your flashlights and scour your cabinets and shelves for cans, bottles and cardboard (like cereal boxes) that you don’t normally recycle. Make a list of all the non-recyclable containers you’re using now (like plastic shopping bags and butter tubs), and figure out ways to reduce your consumption of items that end up in landfills. One easy tip: get reusable grocery bags…and reuse them!
–Recycle, recycle, recycle–make it your mantra! Find more expensive, organic alternatives for all of your consumption. Or ELSE.

Green That Workspace!

Working the night shift? Even if you can’t turn off all the lights at work, look around and see what you can unplug, turn down or use less of (like consuming less paper by printing double-sided). Every day millions of computer screens and speakers are left on overnight—shut ‘em off! And talk to your coworkers about what they can do to help make a difference too.
–Conduct surveillance on your wastrel colleagues and report them immediately! You can also afford to strain your eyes by turning off all those annoying lights.

Involve Your Local Leaders

If your city or town isn’t already hosting an Earth Hour event, ask your local government to set up a community “green” discussion in a public building from 8 to 9 p.m. on March 29. Help organize attendance by reaching out to local environmental and community groups, and come prepared to ask your leaders what they’re doing to make your city greener.
–Enforce your views on your neighbors by insisting local government bend to your every demand. Make sure to eliminate all dissent. Shame those who dare to ask questions.

Clean Up Your Neighborhood

Grab a flashlight and take a long walk through your neighborhood, picking up trash and recyclables as you go. It’s a great chance to do some stargazing too!
–Make sure to do it in the dark, so that picking up trash can turn into a game of “name that trash!”

Unplug and Chill Out

Most of our daily activities—like watching TV, shopping online and texting friends—require loads of electricity, but do we really need to do so much stuff all the time? Take one hour for yourself to just chill…turn off the screens, put down the handheld devices and just take some “you” time to reflect, read or talk to your family. After all, why do more when you can do less?
–Yes, read in the dark. It’s easy if you try. Or better yet, sleep. Recreate the conditions of bedtime, when you normally turn off all the lights/appliances/electronics . . . um, yeah, basically do what you do EVERY night. That’ll make it EXTRA symbolic.

Take Your Temperature

Your thermostat and your refrigerator are responsible for a huge portion of your carbon footprint. If you lower your thermostat by just 2 degrees and set your fridge to 37° F. and the freezer at 0° F., you’ll make a big difference.
–Doable. It is Spring or Fall around the globe, and so you won’t exactly freeze or swelter.

Make a Pledge for the Planet

Earth Hour shouldn’t end at 9:01 pm—it’s a chance to take a first step toward lowering your overall impact on the environment. So use part of that hour to make a personal pledge to do more—recycle, drive less often, remember to turn off or unplug electronics, and beyond. The only way we’re going to stabilize our climate is if we make real changes in our everyday lives. That change begins with Earth Hour, and ends with a healthy planet.
–Rather than waste your time on symbolic gestures that accomplish nothing but make you feel really, really good about yourself, make a plan to actually conserve in a meaningful, sustainable way. We don’t actually want you to return to the Stone Age, now, do we?

Blogging And Transparency

Ben DeGrow has an interesting post detailing liberal RMN columnist Jason Salzman’s call for full blogger disclosure–in the name of credibility and a sense of separation from “professional journalism standards.”

As I commented on Ben’s blog, coming from the MSM–where editorials are unsigned, wire stories often unbylined, and even named writers obscure, often omitting any semblance of identity or disclosure, and even rather poor “journalistic standards”–it seems awfully arrogant to demand “full disclosure” from bloggers.

"How The West Will Be Lost: Democrats’ Strategy To Turn The Mountain West Blue, And What Libertarians And Conservatives Can Do About It"

“We lost our values. We lost our way”–Jon Caldara, president of the Independence Institute

Left to right: Ryan Sager, Jim Pfaff, Brad Jones, Jon Caldara and Gene Healy

There was an AFF Roundtable in Denver on March 26 entitled “How the West will Be Lost: Democrats’ Strategy to turn the Mountain West Blue, and What Libertarians and Conservatives Can Do About It”–featuring Jon Caldara, president, Independence Institute; Jim Pfaff, president, Colorado Family Council; Ryan Sager, author, Elephant in the Room: Evangelicals, Libertarians and the Battle to Control the Republican Party; Gene Healy, senior editor at the Cato Institute and author, Cult of the Presidency: America’s Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power; moderated by Brad Jones, Facethestate.com.

Topics included:

Have Republicans and the Religious Right put more libertarian-leaning mountain states up for grabs?

Looking at the primaries, does Huckabee’s success indicate the growing or waning influence of evangelicals in the Republican Party?

Does Ron Paul’s fundraising success indicating a growing influence of libertarians? And what to make of McCain?

Face The State had a recap of the evening:

At a Wednesday night event moderated by Face The State’s Managing Editor Brad Jones, libertarians and conservatives came together at the Oxford Hotel for a panel discussion on what can be done to save the American West from a Democrat takeover. The conclusion: Republicans face an uphill battle due to serious fractions within what was once a solid coalition.

Jim Pfaff, president of the Colorado Family Council, opened the dialogue by talking about the social conservative issues that evangelicals hold dear, including ending abortion and fighting the effort to recognize safe-sex partners as married. Calling himself a “Christian libertarian,” Pfaff attempted to present an optimistic and united outlook on the ability of social conservatives and libertarians to unite for this November’s general election.
. . .
Gene Healy, a senior editor at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. expressed concern with the fact that too many conservatives have bought the liberal line that the president should “be a soul nurturer, life coach, buddy and supreme warlord of the earth.”

Healy said people should “abandon the false idol of partisanship” because according to his analysis, history demonstrates that one-party rule in Washington results in spending rates three times greater than when control of the three branches of government is split between the two major parties.

Ryan Sager’s post-discussion analysis was decidedly pessimistic, reflecting the commentary of the gathering:

CHEERED as Republicans may be by the Clinton-Obama wars, the fact is that long-term trends still favor the Democrats this fall. To see the problem, consider the interior West – the eight states between the Midwest and the Pacific Coast: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming.

This week, I spoke at a panel put on here in Denver by the America’s Future Foundation, a youth-oriented libertarian-conservative group. The topic: “How the West Will Be Lost.”

In fact, having heard my fellow panelists’ takes on the situation in Colorado and the rest of the region, the use of the future tense looks optimistic: The GOP is already well on its way to losing the West.

The reasons were well summed up by the president of Colorado’s Independence Institute and a popular conservative radio talk-show host in the state, Jon Caldara: “We lost our values. We lost our way.”
. . .
As Caldara put it: “Colorado is, in fact, the test tube of how to export liberal expansion to the Western states.” A moderately conservative state has been turned Blue, Caldara says, because of “the absolute demolishing of what the Right stood for, how the Republican Party turned into something it was never meant to be and went away from Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan ideas.”

Of course, Democrats have worked hard to capitalize on the Republicans’ carelessness. Liberal groups funded by folks like billionaire Quark founder Tim Gill have turned discontent into votes. And now they have a model to use in the rest of the region.

Face The State may have a podcast of the event up in the next few days, and when they do, it’ll be linked here.

SDS Joins Call For Shutting Down Republican National Convention; Bash Back! Radical Trans And Queer Convergence To Crash RNC

**Update–Radical Trans and Queer Convergence–who believe that gay marriage is nothing more than “heteronormative” oppression, will be having a planning meeting next week for “crashing” the Republican National Convention (reminded by Gateway Pundit, from an earlier post):

Bash Back! Radical Trans and Queer Convergence Update.

On Saturday, April 5th radical Trans and Queer people from the midwest and beyond will be gathering for a series of workshops about regarding the strategy for the RNC, queer/trans militant history, current radical trans/queer/anarcha-feminist resistance, self defense, diy sex toys, etc.
. . .
The second day, Sunday, we will have an all day organizing session for plugging into the three tiered strategy to Crash the RNC. We will also be discussing other potential actions during the RNC and we may have a break out session for people who want to discuss the DNC.

Those attending the, “Bash Back! Convergence” organizing session for Crashing the RNC must agree to the Points of Unity put forward by Bash Back! Chicago. While we understand and respect all groups organizing against the Republican and Democratic National Conventions in the name of furthering the LGBTQ cause, it is important that our actions at the RNC have a unified message. These points of Unity do NOT mean that Bash Back! refuses to work with groups who disagree. They are simply what we as a group believe and we want the messaging of our actions to reflect that.

POINTS OF UNITY

Members of Bash Back! must agree to:

1. Fight for liberation. Nothing more, nothing less. State recognition in the form of oppressive institutions such as marriage and militarism are not steps toward liberation but rather towards heteronormative assimilation.

2. A rejection of Capitalism, Imperialism, and all forms of State power.

3. Actively oppose oppression both in and out of the “movement.” Racism, Patriarchy, Heterosexism, Sexism, Transphobia, and all oppressive behavior is not to be tolerated.

4. Respect a diversity of tactics in the struggle for liberation. Do not
solely condemn an action on the grounds that the State deems it to be
illegal.

---

Students for a Democratic Society plans on using blockades and preparing for “self-defense” to shut down the RNC this September:

For SDS, the call to shutdown the RNC offers a tremendous opportunity to plug into what will likely be a major mobilization. Under the direct action strategy being discussed, SDS chapters can participate in this shutdown by selecting and utilizing the tactics with which they are most comfortable. The direct action framework will allow SDS chapters to work with those engaging in similar tactics, both within and outside SDS. Finally, chapters are free to theme their actions how they see fit and there could conceivably be SDS actions highlighting everything from the occupation of Iraq to the rising cost of tuition. Regardless of the themes and tactics chosen, imagine the excitement that we would all feel if SDS held down a few intersections and played a key role in shutting down the RNC…

To that end, we are calling on SDS chapters to both endorse and participate in a three-tiered system for disrupting the RNC on its opening day. At a gathering of over 100 anti-authoritarians from around the country in August of 2007 (facilitated by the Twin Cities based RNC Welcoming Committee), the following direct action strategy was adopted to shut down the RNC:

“Tier 1: Blockade the Xcel Center – Establish 15-20 blockades utilizing a diversity of tactics, creating inner and outer rings around St. Paul’s Xcel Center.

Tier 2: Immobilize Delegates’ Transportation – Immobilize the delegates’ transportation infrastructure, including buses, bus depots, etc.

Tier 3: Block Connecting Bridges – Block the five western bridges connecting the cities.

Those plugging into this strategy will be free to shape their actions as they see fit, using the tactics they consider appropriate. As the specific blockade sites are established, some sites may be designated “red zones” (prepared for self-defense), “yellow zones” (peaceful but assertive), and “green zones” (no risk of arrest) so as to accommodate a wide variety of creative tactics. The RNC Welcoming Committee is currently considering these zones and laying out specific blockade sites. Once these details are finalized they will be made public, and locals will be available to provide specific information and pictures of intersections, bridges, and other relevant locations to people that would like them.”

Recreate ‘68 and Unconventional Action have called for similar harassing/disruptive tactics at Denver’s Democratic National Convention, though not on the scale envisioned for the RNC.

Just give them some time.

For more on the moonbats’ plans at both DNC and RNC conventions, peruse the archives.

In Schaffer v Udall Battle, Coloradans Offered Clear Choice

“The two likely candidates in this year’s U.S. Senate contest, Rep. Mark Udall, a Democrat, and former Rep. Bob Schaffer, a Republican, served side-by-side in Congress from 1999 through 2002. Over those four years, they cast 2,036 votes together, often on symbolic or non-controversial matters. And yet they still managed to disagree more than half the time – 1,078 times, to be precise”–Rocky Mountain News

As the Rocky Mountain News points out, Senate candidates Bob Schaffer and Mark Udall are as different as night and day:

If you think Rep. Mark Udall, a Democrat, and former Rep. Bob Schaffer, a Republican, disagree on 1,000 different things, that’s close.

From 1999 through 2002, when they worked across the aisle from one another in the U.S. House of Representatives, they cast opposite votes a whopping 1,078 times.

That long and detailed record makes the 2008 contest a rarity in state politics. Not since 1986, when Democrat Tim Wirth faced Republican Ken Kramer, have two one-time House colleagues gone head-to-head in a U.S. Senate race.

“Talk about a paper trail. This is a paper trail that leads into the Rockies for this Senate race,” said Norman Provizer, a political science professor at Metropolitan State College in Denver. “They represent two very differing views on all kinds of issues. If you look at it from an issue perspective, they aren’t Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum.”

The Rocky Mountain News analyzed all 2,036 congressional votes, big and small, that Schaffer and Udall cast during their four years together in the House. It’s more than enough to keep the ad-makers on both sides busy in the run-up to November.

Fair use prevents a lengthier quotation (the article is quite long and extensively researched), but here are a few highlights:

Schaffer’s stance is first, Udall’s second

Military issues

* IRAQ WAR: Resolution authorizing use of force against Iraq. (Oct. 10, 2002) YES NO

* SPENDING: An amendment that would have imposed a 1 percent, across-the-board cut on military programs. (May 18, 2000) NO YES

* RECRUITING: Amendment to education spending bill that would have prohibited funds from being used to block military recruiting at secondary schools. (June 13, 2000) YES NO

Homeland security

* ANTI-TERRORISM LAW: The anti-terrorism law, the Patriot Act, first enacted in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. (Oct. 12, and Oct. 24, 2001)YES NO

* ARMING PILOTS: Legislation to allow airline pilots to carry guns in the cockpit as a defense against terrorism. (July 10, 2002)YES NO

Education

* SCHOOL CHOICE: Amendment to the proposed “No Child Left Behind Act” that would have allowed students from low-performing schools, or crime victims from “unsafe schools,” to choose to attend private schools using public funds. (May 23, 2001)YES NO

Taxes

* BUSH TAX CUTS: Approval of White House-backed tax cuts of the “Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001.” (March 8, 2001)YES NO

* TAX LIMITS: A proposed constitutional amendment requiring two-thirds majority votes to approve new tax increases. (June 12, 2002)YES NO

Takeaways?

This contest pits candidates from rival parties that present a clear difference in viewpoints. The common charge that most candidates in any election are “basically the same” can simply not be applied in this case.

Schaffer-Republican-Conservative

Udall-Democrat-Liberal

The move to the “middle” where both sides believe the election will be won features an unaffiliated voting bloc poised to become the largest pool of registered voters in Colorado. Schaffer acknowledges that the state’s tilt has been blue since 2004; Udall realizes that he is not the “moderate” that either Sen. Ken Salazar or Gov. Bill Ritter were (or purported to be) when they ran statewide.

The most recent poll shows both candidates within the margin of error (Udall leads 46-43), a clear toss-up, in spite of the MSM’s continued meme that the seat is really Udall’s to lose.

The votes revealed (or re-revealed, in some cases, for those political junkies who have been following this blog) will be the subject of campaign fodder, political ads, and 527 mudslinging for the next 7 months.

The only thing that can be agreed on–the stature and importance of this race. Republicans see the seat as an opportunity to roll back further losses due to retirement and a generally unfavorable political climate that has persisted since 2006. Democrats envision not only a pick-up, but an advance toward the potential 60 vote filibuster-proof supermajority.

Exit question: with Republicans settled on Sen. John McCain as their nominee, and the Democrats witnessing a fierce race rage on between Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama, which candidate stands to benefit from their respective party’s nominee? Who is helped more, or flipping that proposition, who is hurt the least?

**Update:
Ryan Sager is rather pessimistic about the GOP’s chances in the “interior West” unless Sen. Hillary Clinton is the nominee, but Daniel Larison has a different explanation for the region’s recent trend to blue, and asks–is it really a recent development, and can short term trends be extrapolated into long term outcomes?

Cross posted from Schaffer v Udall

Howard Dean Worried Clinton-Obama Battle Hurting Dems’ Chances In November

**Update–by July 1st.

And he wants a nominee before the Democratic National Convention in August:

Democratic Party chief Howard Dean says Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton and their supporters should beware of tearing each other down, demoralizing the base and damaging the party’s chances of winning the White House in November.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Dean also said he hopes the Democratic nominee will be determined shortly after the voting ends in early June and that he will encourage the superdelegates who will play a role to make up their minds before the August convention in Denver.

Dean said the charges and countercharges between Clinton and Obama have gotten too personal at times. He declined to say how they have crossed the line, but he said he’s made it clear privately when it has happened.

“You do not want to demoralize the base of the Democratic Party by having the Democrats attack each other,” he said Thursday during the interview in his office at Democratic National Committee headquarters. “Let the media and the Republicans and the talking heads on cable television attack and carry on, fulminate at the mouth. The supporters should keep their mouths shut about this stuff on both sides because that is harmful to the potential victory of a Democrat.”

The only ones frothing with negativity right now are the Democrats–apparently Dean’s theory that only Republicans and pundits are part of an attack machine is failing, miserably.

The demoralization has already begun. And telling supporters to “keep their mouths shut” so as not to create disarray?

So much for free speech in the Democrat party.

It’s not gonna look good to have a Presidential loss on your resume, is it now Dean?