Dominic Dezzutti's Blog

Even though legalizing pot in Breckenridge and Denver’s Driver’s License law grabbed the big headlines from Tuesday’s election, it was an article about the failed tax and bond increases that caught my eye Thursday. 

 

Jessica Fender’s piece in Thursday’s Denver Post talked about how several large money requests failed on Tuesday, including money for libraries, schools and open space in Boulder.

 

The article described that many leaders who are thinking about putting tax increases or other similar measures on the ballot in 2010 and 2011 are fearful that the results in 2009 are a bad sign. 

 

The 2009 results may indeed be a bad sign for future financial requests, but I think it may also be a sign of what kind of strategy we will see in the 2010 campaigns that do come to fruition.

 

2009 showed that appealing to the heart strings is not effective in a recession. However, there is a strategy that is likely to be more effective.

 

Fear.

 

It’ll be hard to convince elected leaders that they shouldn’t ask for money at all in 2010. So since they have to find a way to ask for the money, I think 2009 will make many campaigns to be based more in fear than in the benefits to society. 

 

I get this idea from some of the successful financial asks in 2009. The few successful tax or bond initiatives were local, located in smaller towns. And many of them talked a lot about how if this particular measure wasn’t passed, firefighters and police officers would lose their jobs.

 

And there it is.  All government leaders have to do in 2010 is find the equivalent of “firefighters and police officers losing their jobs” in their own proposals. 

 

Let me state here that I have nothing against fire fighters and police officers. Many of my cousins and best friends are some of these local heroes and their jobs should be protected.

 

And while not every proposal that threatens their jobs succeeds, my point is that usually when their jobs are threatened; it often feels that our own safety is threatened, so it’s an effective campaign strategy.

 

So while some major financial campaigns may indeed be put on the back burner in 2010, don’t be surprised to see some fairly aggressive campaigns for the ones that do make the ballot.  It’ll be hard to make that case for Fastracks, but I learned a long time ago to not underestimate the creativity of campaign organizers. 

 

Prudence may rule the day in 2010 and we might see less requests for more money.  But don’t be shocked to see campaign ads that warn that if “these funds aren’t approved, we’re all going to die!!!”  It might be a little less dramatic, but not by much.

The Congressional race in New York’s 23^rd district has received a great deal of national attention. The results of this race really put a damper on an otherwise fun night for the GOP on the national level.

 

Here’s the set up. A Democrat won a race in the 23^rd Congressional district in New York for the first time in over 100 years. It happened thanks to a coup by the conservative wing of the local GOP, which derailed the campaign of the moderate Republican in the race, and installed its own social conservative candidate.

 

Even though the vanquished moderate Republican bowed out of the race, she still took home 6% of the vote. Do you know how many percentage points the Democrat won by? 

 

That’s right, 5%. If you do the math, Republicans could have likely kept the seat that they have held since the Civil War with a moderate. But, Conservatives felt it was better to lose on principle than to win with compromise. 

 

This situation reminds me of a major national political convention held here in Denver in 2008. No, not the DNC, the LNC.

 

The Libertarian National Convention was held in Denver a few weeks before the Democrats showed up.  Admittedly, their party was a bit smaller than the DNC, seeing that the Dems used the Pepsi Center and the Libertarians used the ballroom at the Sheraton Hotel. 

 

But while the Libertarians engaged in very real debate about who their Presidential nominee would be, there was very little debate about their platform. On that, there would simply be no compromise, even if it meant attracting many more voters. 

 

The folks at the LNC stuck to their principles, even if it meant losing their shot at real power. They would rather have stayed true to the party line than compromise one little bit in order to get votes from any particular group.

 

That’s a very honorable and admirable position to take and many Libertarians can sleep well at night knowing that they have not compromised any of their principles for power. But, when they wake up, they awake to a world ran by other people.

 

That’s what they have in common with the Conservatives in New York’s 23^rd District. They are loyal to their principles, refuse to compromise and will watch someone else run things for the foreseeable future.

 

What the Libertarians at the LNC and the Conservatives in upstate New York have missed is that real people live with compromise everyday. Compromise is not a sign of weak principles, but more often than not, it’s how people from different perspectives can get things accomplished for the greater good. 

 

People on the passionate wings of both parties like to assume that their heroes never compromised. If their heroes were ever able to get anything accomplished, they compromised somewhere down the line.

 

For most voters it comes down to a very simple question. Would you like to have someone who agrees with you 50% of the time get some things done, or someone who agrees with you 100% of the time get nothing done?  Voters in upstate New York have spoken. The real question is, was anybody listening?

While several municipalities are holding elections this week, 2009 is generally considered an off year for elections. The big elections at the state and federal levels only happen on even years.

 

What’s nice about this set up is that as a debate producer, I routinely spend the odd-years coming down off an election high and planning for the next year. I can usually get back to my real job and relax from the 24/7 politics stuff for a while.

 

I thought I still had 2 months left in 2009 to relax, but my shopping trip on Sunday gave me two reminders of how fast 2009 has passed me by. 

 

One, Christmas decorations quickly pushed the Halloween candy and décor off the shelves, which as an aside, is one of my pet peeves. I realize Christmas is a mere 7 weeks away, but can’t stores at least wait until I come off the sugar high from leftover Halloween candy to start putting up Christmas lights? But, I digress.

 

The second reminder that 2009 is quickly passing me by was the person soliciting petition signatures in front of the store where I shopped. I realize that some folks behind potential ballot measures for 2010 started this summer, but I never saw their efforts, so I was able to put 2010 ballot measures out of my mind. I no longer have that option.

 

The person procuring signatures also reminded me that while many stories will be written about the big races for Senate and for Governor, the ballot issues on the 2010 ballot will take on a very formidable life of their own. Their effect on the candidate races should not be underestimated either.

 

There will likely be some populist tax cutting or tax restriction measures on the 2010 ballot. It won’t surprise me if many Republican candidates are asked their stances on these measures as litmus tests by certain groups. And even with Democratic majorities in power, don’t think some Progressive groups won’t try to put certain Democratic candidates to their own litmus tests.

 

Speaking of certain groups, don’t look now, but minor political parties are getting a real boost from the current mood in America, and it’s not just the middle ground folks. There are groups from both wings of the traditional parties that are successfully pushing their own candidates in big 2009 special elections across the country. It’s very likely some of that energy will find its way to Colorado in 2010.

 

Combine the fact that Colorado enjoys putting as many measures as possible on its ballot every election with a fractionalized political party system and add a dash of civic unrest over the economy and health care and you have a recipe for a very interesting 2010.

 

And while we’re officially a full year away from the 2010 madness, trust me, it’s a lot closer than you think. 

Some of my favorite football highlights actually serve as mini lessons in life. Leon Lett and Don Beebe represent my very favorite example. Lett picked up a fumble and was rumbling towards the end zone, but he began to showboat before he scored. Don Beebe caught up to him and stripped him of the football, humiliating Lett in front of a Super Bowl audience, and teaching the world an important lesson; do not celebrate until after you score.

 

Speaker Nancy Pelosi would be wise to learn from Leon Lett. Her display on the U.S. Capitol steps reminded me of someone who is celebrating well before crossing the finish line.

 

If you missed it, Pelosi announced that the House had reached an “historic moment” with the introduction of a new health care bill that House Democrats have agreed upon and hope to vote on as early as next week.

 

I’m not going to get into the details of the bill because covering even the highlights of the 1,990 page bill would be a bit daunting. Instead, I am wondering out loud why Pelosi held her celebration moment when she did.

 

It would seem she’s celebrating far too early. Why not wait until President Obama is signing the historic legislation into law?

 

I have a theory. You knew that was coming, right?

 

I think you make a big announcement and call it an “historic moment” now because this is the last time she’ll see her bill unscathed. Everyone knows the adage that making laws is like making sausage. Well, making Health Care Reform into law is going to be such a violent process that it will make a Quentin Tarantino movie look like an episode of Sesame Street.

 

Pelosi’s not going to want to celebrate this “historic moment” after this bill gets through the Senate and then a joint conference committee. Much of her original bill may indeed survive the carnage, but it will likely look very different than it does right now.

 

So, if you’re going to celebrate, do it when things have yet to get ugly.

 

There’s one more thing.

 

If this legislation finally passes, it won’t be her celebration, it will belong to President Obama. She better enjoy her limelight now, because at the signing ceremony in the Rose Garden, she’ll be lucky to play a supporting role at best.

 

So considering the details, Pelosi really isn’t showboating early; she’s showboating during the only moment she can. In a few weeks, her bill will suffer a number of amendments and compromises and may not be something she entirely wants to celebrate. And if she’s lucky to get most of it passed, somebody else will be spiking the ball.

 

In the end, maybe Leon Lett isn’t the right lesson for Speaker Pelosi. Maybe it’s Don King. Make all the hay you can before things get bloody and before the press wants to talk to the real champ, and not you.

 

Only in America.

Senator Joe Lieberman set the blogosphere ablaze on Tuesday with his announcement that he would not vote for the current Health Care reform bill if it included a “public option”. In fact, he said he would even join the fight against it, saying “We’re trying to do too much.”

 

While his Democratic Senate colleagues downplayed the comments, progressive bloggers have called for his head on a platter. Many claim that he should be kicked out of the Democratic caucus and should have his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee taken away from him.

 

The response was more visceral and brutal than the conservative responses to Senator Olympia Snowe, after she voted for the current bill, but just barely. 

 

Americans tend to like their politics and their politicians in completely different ways.  We like our politics to be team warfare, one side versus the other and if you’re wearing one jersey, by God, you better stay loyal to that one team.

 

But when we elect politicians, we like them to be free thinkers, independently minded, willingly to buck the status quo. We want them to be independent of party influences and to decide on issues for all of their constituents, not just the ones from the particular party they belong to.

 

What’s funny about this is that not only do we want this to be true here in Colorado, where as a state, we’re more independent minded anyway, but it’s the same for Progressives and Conservatives beyond our state borders. Both groups want politicians to be true to their point of view and buck the party if party leaders stray from the purified gospel. 

 

So, as an electorate, whether we’re independent or dyed in the wool loyalist, we put ourselves in these awkward situations where we call for the heads of the leaders that exhibit the qualities we voted for in the people that follow their parties like sheep.

 

Confused?  Me too.

 

It would seem to me that we should finally decide what we truly want. Do we want party automatons or independent thinkers that will, from time to time, throw a monkey wrench into the plans we may actually support? It seems that we cannot have both.

 

When it comes to Lieberman and Snowe, I’m not sure if they are displaying political savvy or thoughtful independence. But while I can find reason to disagree with both of them, I tend to support the idea of people at least looking like they are thinking for themselves. I’m not so doe-eyed to think that their moves are altruistic, but I’m also not about to help collect wood to burn either at the stake. 

 

How do you feel about this? Here’s how to find out. Say you’re about to cast your vote on Election Day. You’re faced with two candidates, but you don’t know their party affiliation, but you do know their voting record.

 

Do you vote for the person who voted with their party 99% of the time, or the candidate that disagreed with their party 50% of the time? Even if they are just pretending to think, I’m going with the thinker every time.

The fight that the Obama administration has picked with FOX News has elicited more web traffic than Balloon Boy, so you know it’s a big deal. And while we have heard a variety of takes about what this says about Obama, whether it was a blunder or a Machiavellian move of brilliance, I think the story says a great deal about all of the players involved, not just the President. It’s easy to forget the other players in this drama, FOX News and the GOP.

 

First of all, whether it’s folly or brilliance, this story tells me that the Obama administration is indeed looking for a distraction.  One would think that they would be too busy to seek a distraction with Health Care reform changing its face daily, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan worsening and the economy only improving in sectors that received a direct federal bailout.

 

Wait a second, maybe I’ve answered my own question.

 

This distraction won’t last for long, but the fact they needed one this big with less than one year in office is telling.   

 

For FOX, this really is a win-win situation. The majority of the coverage of this whole event has included two very important points. One, the commentary arm of FOX is quite different than the reporting side and secondly, the reporting side has actually broken several stories including ACORN and others, much to the chagrin of the administration. Ratings are up 17%, and while some commentators believe this situation might hurt their credibility, it may very well help it. 

 

And as an aside, if you’re Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity, how much fun is it to see your network obviously getting very deep under the skin of the President?  

 

For the GOP, this issue only magnifies the dramatic lack of leadership the party has at the national level. I don’t think FOX speaks for the GOP, because as an organization, FOX is far more successful and consistent than the GOP. So if FOX doesn’t speak for the GOP, who does? Is it Rush or Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin or John McCain, or maybe Michael Steele? The problem is, none of them truly lead or speak for the GOP. And since nature and politics, abhors a vacuum, the media and the President will designate one for them. 

 

In the end, I don’t think this will come down as some seminal moment of Obama’s first year in office. He and the American public have bigger fish to fry. This may give Obama a spike in either direction in popularity or credibility, but more than likely, it’ll be a wash.

 

But one thing is for sure, this whole thing has to be a major disappointment for all of those people that voted for Obama because they thought he was a different kind of politician and would be our first “post-partisan” president. This smells a lot like politics as usual, and if you need confirmation on that, I believe FOX News will have a report on it later this week.

The growing controversy over the proliferation of medical marijuana dispensaries is serving as a very interesting test of which way the political winds are blowing.

 

In states that have legalized the use and distribution of marijuana for medicinal reasons, like Colorado, dispensaries are popping up like Starbucks on steroids. Nationally and locally, politicians of all different stripes are calling for some sort of regulation, but few know what kind of regulation and even fewer want to prescribe the needed medicine.

 

This isn’t a typical wedge issue where one political party can use it to inspire their base to come out and fight or support the issue. Frankly, neither party’s base could really care less about the issue, which reflects most of the middle of the road voters as well.

 

Some elected leaders have come out with their opinions, but the issue is still murky.

 

President Obama announced that the Justice Department should not spend their time arresting anyone who is in “strict compliance” with any state’s medical marijuana laws. But Colorado Attorney General John Suthers believes if the President wants his new policy to work, Colorado and other states must regulate dispensaries.

 

State Senator Chris Romer announced this week that he intends to introduce legislation in 2010 to regulate the distribution of medical marijuana, but State House Speaker Terrance Carroll responded by saying he does not see marijuana regulation as a priority for the House agenda this session.

 

The reality is that there are few politicians who want to play the narc card or the enabler card here. State Attorney General John Suthers is in a unique position because he is the state’s top law enforcer. But besides him, few politicians are finding an upside fighting for either side of this issue.

 

What will finally spur politicians into action on proposed regulation? I can only think of two scenarios.

 

One, if a very young minor gets caught getting pot from one of these dispensaries it might raise enough eyebrows to spur some action, that’s not likely to happen. 

 

The more likely scenario is if an elected leader can figure out how the government can make money from it. Once that happens, and don’t worry it will, then all bets are off. The bipartisan effort to regulate will come together faster than you can say “reefer madness”.

 

I don’t think this current complacency will lead to a quickening of the full legalization of marijuana.  As a society, we like taking things in baby steps, and we are still one of only a handful of states that have legalized medical marijuana. Fully legal pot may be on the horizon, but it’ll take its time getting here.

 

In the meantime, if you are one of those few folks who have a strong opinion one way or the other on this issue, you’re going to need to get a lot more friends to agree with you if you hope to move your leaders into action anytime soon. That, or some really good brownies.

Education spending is always a controversial topic. Most everyone agrees that we should have top notch schools with great teachers helping our kids become well educated leaders of tomorrow. However, almost no one agrees on how we should do that and how much we should have to pay to make that happen.

 

This week’s decision from the Colorado Supreme Court may make this problem even more difficult to solve. By a 4-3 vote, the State Supreme Court overturned two lower court decisions allowing a case to go forward that have severe ramifications on the state budget.

 

A group of parents from a total of 22 school districts, 14 of them from the San Luis Valley, can now go to Denver District Court and try to prove that the state government does not uphold its own constitution by providing a “thorough and uniform” education for every eligible child in the state.

 

The judgment from this pending case may find that the state doesn’t spend enough money on education and mandate more money be spent on K-12 education. That’s right, even though it already takes a major portion of the state budget and is constitutionally protected to increase every year, it is possible that Colorado doesn’t spend enough on education.

 

I realize that almost every public policy problem comes down to money, but with this one, that’s not the most confusing part of the problem. I think it’s harder to look beyond the money and ask exactly how we would define “thorough and uniform”.

In a state as diverse as Colorado, how do you make education more “uniform”? And I am dying to find out how we go about defining “thorough”.

In fact, in the dissent opinion, State Supreme Court Justice Nancy Rice said, "There is no national standard from which this court could adopt a definition of 'thorough,' and more importantly, the varying definitions other states ascribe to the term illustrate no consensus on what 'thorough' means."

To me, “thorough and uniform” sound like good idea words written by people who write constitutions. They roll off the tongue, like “domestic tranquility” and a “more perfect union”.  I know that’s an entirely different document, but you know what I mean.

 

We can pretend that money will solve the issue, but I don’t think it will solve this one. We’re trying to turn rosy words into policy and trying to define those rosy words are going to get us in trouble. 

 

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t feel the kids in Meeker should get a worse education than the kids in Highlands Ranch, but my point is, whether we like it or not, their educations will be different and they will not be uniform. I don’t know how you make the education a student receives at a high school with 30 students uniform with a high school with 3500 students.

 

So while this case may end up revolving around funding, when our elected representatives try to define what the writers of our constitution meant, it’s going to get messy. And the only thing that will clean up that mess will be a time machine to visit aforementioned constitution authors, and I don’t think one of those is in the budget.

Well, if he wanted to be famous, he got his wish. Richard Heene will now be known around the world as the guy who hid his kid for a better reality show deal. That’ll be a nice reputation for him in prison.

 

I know we have all heard about just about enough regarding this story, but I have just a few, and strangely enough, succinct, thoughts about the fallout of the “Balloon Boy” saga.

 

1. The Media is to Blame – Several comments on news websites blame the media for this circus. My beef with that is this simple truth, the media will not incessantly cover a story that doesn’t gather viewers. Trust me, if you’re sick of a story being on TV or anywhere else, don’t blame the media. Blame the countless number of your neighbors who are watching around the clock.
2. Reality Shows are to Blame – Again, my problem with this is while there are a variety of unscrupulous reality TV show producers out there, the medium is not to blame. When someone wants to be famous, they’ll find a way. A reality show was just the opportunity du jour for Heene, it could have been a myriad other things. I’m no fan of the reality show concept, but as bad as some are, they are only a magnifying glass to what some people really are like, TV or not. 
3. The Real Victim? The Next Real Case – You and I both know that Balloon Boy, and Balloon Dad more accurately, will be the first thing to cross the minds of authorities when the next report of a missing child comes in. To me, it’s tragic to think that one of the byproducts of this story will be a potentially deadly delay in the search of the next real missing child as the background media contacts of the families are checked out.
4. Does Larry King get the Assist? - Some people openly criticized Larry King for putting the family on live national television so quickly after the ordeal. However, the family’s appearance on the program, and Falcon’s unintended confession, seemed to crack the case wide open. On a side note, the Today Show does get a Dishonorable Mention for not reacting with compassion to Falcon’s projectile “nerves” and just going ahead with the interview on Friday morning, as if the child didn’t just get sick.
5. What in the Heck Did He Think was Going to Happen? - After all is said and done, what kind of sick optimism does Richard Heene have in order to think that pulling off this hoax was going to work towards his advantage and not blow up in his face? At best, he’s a parent that would allow his six year old near a balloon that could supposedly carry him away, at worst, well, this is the worst case scenario. Did he think that if his cover weren’t blown that authorities wouldn’t be interested in seeing how the balloon could actually carry as much weight as he said it could? Talk about not thinking about the next step.  But again, the good news here is that there will be plenty of time to think things like that out in prison.

A task force of the Metro Mayors Caucus met earlier this week and the major topic of conversation was Fastracks, and how to complete the entire project as advertised in 2004.

 

Aurora Mayor Ed Tauer presented a proposal that would ask voters for a second tax increase for the project, but would have that money only go toward the half of the original project that likely will not see the light of day or the light of rail, if more funding isn’t provided.

 

While Tauer’s idea is sound on paper, asking for more money, regardless of how good the plan looks, will be very difficult. Between the economy and the disastrous underestimation of true costs in the original proposal, voters are going to be hard to convince that this time, the cost estimates are right and the project will get done on time. After all, they were told that last time.

 

But the most critical part of the potential success of any new tax request won’t have anything to do with the economy or even cost estimates. It will have to do with metro area unity, and right now, that’s a resource in short supply.

 

The fact that all of the governments of the metro area cities worked in tandem and in agreement on the first Fastracks project had a great deal to do with the success of the first tax request in 2004. That subtle but vital ingredient needs to be found soon for RTD to have any hope of receiving any more money for this project.

 

I believe that metro area cohesion is important because everyone needs to feel that there is something in it for them. Most folks in Longmont couldn’t care less about Aurora getting any light rail service. However, if Longmont gets trains when Aurora gets trains, then, well, they may get on board with Aurora. It’s that mentality that put all of the cities on the same page in 2004.

 

But that harmony of 2004 is now a thing of the past. Some cities are seeing progress, while others are seeing little to no hope of ever catching light rail in their own zip code. 

 

And while the economy is getting the blame for the cost overruns and declines in revenue, it’s the economic stimulus plan that should get a great deal of the blame for dividing the once harmonious cities.

 

Federal Stimulus funding has kick-started a few of the proposed lines into Lakewood, Arvada, Wheat Ridge and to DIA. Those cities volunteered to seek that federal funding and fulfill all of the crazy qualifications that always come with any money from the federal government.

 

However, those cities with lines that didn’t seek federal funds are now out in the cold and without any additional taxes, they may not be finished until we are all using jetpacks to get around.

 

I applaud Mayor Ed Tauer for being creative in trying to find a solution to the Fastracks problem. But, more importantly, he and his fellow mayors will need to stretch their imaginations to include a way to get all of the cities on the same ideological page again. Without that harmony, they may be better off investing in jetpacks.