Four ballot issues will play a major role in shaping the outcome of this November's election in Colorado: minimum wage, lobbying reform, domestic partnerships, and reproductive choice. It is more important than ever for progressives to be informed on the ballot issues so that we can counter the efforts of the far right to use them against us.

Join us next week in Colorado Springs at a special meeting with representatives from the lobbying reform, domestic partnerships, minimum wage, and reproductive choice initiative groups. You can learn first-hand the facts about four initiatives that could help determine the outcome of the election. You'll also learn more about how ProgressNowAction members can get involved in the ballot issue campaigns.

Time: Thursday, August 10 at 6:00 PM
Duration: 1 hour
Host: Maria Handley

Location: Penrose Public Library (Colorado Springs, CO)
20 N. Cascade St.
Colorado Springs, CO 80903


Click here to rsvp: Link

Please also forward this email to your friends and neighbors and invite them as well. We look forward to seeing you a week from Thursday.

Once you wade through the suspicious hand-wringing about those subversive "netroots" destroying "civility in politics," a clearer picture emerges. Of frightened people hiding from their own bad choices and appeasement. Joe Conason:

Lieberman's Allies Blame the Bloggers

According to the standard version, Mr. Lieberman is the victim of ferocious "liberal bloggers" from around the country. Dispersed across the United States, these meddling left-wing activists somehow conspired to launch Ned Lamont's primary challenge, and then somehow mesmerized voters, perhaps via the Internets, to reject the Senator they had chosen three times before. Combining Internet technology with progressive ideology, the miasmic and unwholesome blogosphere now threatens to swallow poor Joe in a cloud of angry, buzzing bytes...

Contrary to the silly myth repeated by lazy journalists and anxious consultants, the Internet did not conjure up voter opposition to Mr. Lieberman. Yet that canard has generated its own virtual reality. Blathering on so relentlessly about the supposed centrality of bloggers in the Lamont campaign, the mainstream media provided priceless free publicity to the challenger, while simultaneously "branding" his campaign as cool and new...

What is most astonishing about typical commentary on the Connecticut primary, aside from the nonsense about bloggers, is the prevailing attitude toward the war in Iraq. While the catastrophic consequences of the invasion and occupation are now so obvious that conservative columnists and Republican politicians can no longer evade them, liberal Democrats are expected to keep their mouths shut. And many of them do, evidently fearful of accusations that they want to "cut and run."

But anyone who knows how to read a poll--indeed, anyone who has read a poll during the past several months--knows that popular opinion on the war is strongly negative. The American public now understands that the Bush administration deceived them about its reasons for invading Iraq, that the President never had any serious plan for establishing order there, and that he badly understated the costs and grossly overstated the benefits of "regime change." They are beginning to understand that his belligerent foreign policy has been a sham, and that his management of the war on terror has been a shame.

Unfortunately for Mr. Lieberman, he understands none of those things...

You see, it's not about Joe Lieberman. It's about speaking the truth, and shattering this fake veneer of "bipartisanship" which is used to deflect criticism of one of the great tragedies of our lifetimes away from the people who deserve it. Joe Lieberman is just a symptom of that misdirection, like Zell Miller or the "Democrats for Nixon."

And progressives who want more than a (D) after a person's name -- who demand more than vague platitudes and capitulation to the GOP at every step -- are the cure.

Studying the Republican Party is like playing Six Degress of Kevin Bacon. You keep coming back to the same people.

Take Jack Abramoff and Grover Norquist, for example.

About once a month since 2001, Grover Norquist has invited a top Bush administration official or a Republican congressional leader to dine with him and some 20 or 30 corporate lobbyists who help subsidize Americans for Tax Reform, the anti-tax group that Norquist heads.

The dinners at Norquist's Washington, D.C., home aren't cheap: The lobbyists pay ATR between $10,000 and $25,000 a year for the privilege of attending several of the intimate get-togethers, which have featured the likes of White House political guru Karl Rove and Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, according to several lobbyists who have attended...

From time to time over the years, the K Street crowd has been joined at the dinners by other ATR supporters, including the leaders of some casino-owning Indian tribes who were top clients of one of Norquist's oldest friends, former lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Representatives of the Saginaw Chippewas of Michigan, the Louisiana Coushattas, and the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians were among those who either attended or helped to finance some of the Norquist-hosted soirees that were advertised as tax policy events...

The Indian tribes' participation in the ATR dinners and the White House visits underscores the long and successful political partnership that Norquist and Abramoff have maintained since the early 1980s, when Norquist managed Abramoff's successful campaign to be chairman of the College Republicans.

Don't forget Abramoff and Norquist's other buddy, Tom DeLay. Who commanded an army of ready stooges in Congress like Colorado's own Bob Beauprez. Beauprez's voting record in Congress is 96% identical to Tom DeLay's, making him Public Campaign's #1 "In DeLay's Pocket" poster child. Who DeLay -- and for that matter Grover Norquist -- has been working for is now a matter of public record.

According to the press release on Congressman Beauprez's website, Norquist gave Bob Beauprez an "award" for his years of hard work. I'm thinking that says a mouthful...

Four ballot issues will play a major role in shaping the outcome of this November's election in Colorado: minimum wage, lobbying reform, domestic partnerships, and reproductive choice. It is more important than ever for progressives to be informed on the ballot issues so that we can counter the efforts of the far right to use them against us.

Join us for a series of special meetings with representatives from the lobbying reform, domestic partnerships, minimum wage, and reproductive choice initiative groups. You can learn first-hand the facts about four initiatives that could help determine the outcome of the election. You'll also learn more about how ProgressNowAction members can get involved in the ballot issue campaigns.

Time: Wednesday, July 26 at 6:00 PM
Duration: 1 hour
Host: Bobby Clark
Location: Harmony Library (Fort Collins, CO)
4616 South Shields
Fort Collins, CO 80526

Time: Thursday, August 3 at 6:00 PM
Duration: 1 hour
Host: Maria Handley
Location: Pueblo Main Library (Pueblo, CO)
100 E. Abriendo
Pueblo, CO 81004

To RSVP for the Fort Collins event, click here.
To RSVP for the Pueblo event, click here.

We look forward to seeing you!

Look at that. They're hugging. That's sweet, but also wholesome and manly. There's nothing gay about this, so don't even start.

Besides, $600,000 makes up for a lot. Nixonian approval rating? Tell it to my bank account, O'Donnell says. And the $50,000 or so local governments have to shell out every time Air Force One touches down? Torchiere on the crème broulee.

You'll recall that last time the President was in town, things got a little...well, icky. That's why it's important to point out that the relationship between President Bush and Rick O'Donnell is completely platonic, despite what any misleading liberal media pictures may indicate (see above).

All and all, it was a good day for Rick O'Donnell -- neat plane ride, lots of cash, details kindly handled by the locals. One can only hope, as I'm sure he does, that Yeats was wrong about that whole "the center does not hold" thing. After all, there are some people (65% of Americans) who don't think President Bush deserves a hug. O'Donnell knows it, but you won't see that plastic smile moving a tick when the checkbooks come out.

(Except Doug Lamborn)

This is scorched earth in a Springs Republican primary. Lamborn goes right-wing nuclear by proxy, according to Colorado Pols:

Crank Cries Foul on Weird Mail Piece

The Christian Coalition of Colorado is paying for direct mail that attacks two Republican candidates for congress in CD-5: Jeff Crank and Lionel Rivera.

The mail piece in question seeks to show that both Crank and Rivera are sympathetic to gay rights, but it does so in a pretty bold way. It also does it in a pretty inaccurate way, claiming that Crank endorsed "known homosexual activist" Richard Skorman for the Colorado Springs City Council...

Bad enough that this is what they call smear. Some people would feel honored. Worse that it's completely bogus -- how many gay votes will Rivera and Crank mistakenly garner from this?

You're right, that's probably not what Jeff Crank is sweating. How wonderful to not be in the target demographic for this kind of bile...

Dear Friends and Colleagues:

At times TruthOut is pretty alarmist and goes off half-cocked. But this story has some very good points that are very sobering. While I do not believe that an "apocalypse" is imminent, I do believe that we are heading in that direction and at a speed that exceeds the give-take, push-shove and glad-handing of the Cold War. The way that our Administration has postured itself and conducted (utterly failed to conduct) constructive diplomatic interventions has placed us, and much of the rest of the world, in highly precarious situation. Both the concept and the practice of "constructive engagement" and, for that matter, good clear communication, are alien to this Administration. John Dean's recent book "Conservatives without Conscience," might well have been titled "Conservatives without Competence nor Conscience."

Here is the article: Link

If we had conducted ourselves in this manner during the Cold War, I think the outcome would have been much different! This Administrations tactics and action has been and continues to be authoritarian, bullying and blatantly and disdainfully proud ("American is Pre-eminent!") in its swaggering use, almost exclusively, of threats and intimidation.

This is why I think we must give credence to the "whistle-blowers" at all levels. And we must address these issues, not merely the changing of personnel (elected and appointed). We must address the issues of big money controlling our elections and the conduct of our nation's government, develop and enforce new legislative initiatives that ensure better oversight and accountability in our private and public sectors.

Let us stop indulging in "Bush bashing" and focus on the underlying and controlling factors that have put this Administration in power and maintained it for the last six years.

Sincerely,

John Barbee

Here's what I said two weeks ago:

My ancestors burned Atlanta

We didn't fight the Civil War for nothing. Rosa Parks didn't take her seat at the front of the bus for nothing. Martin Luther King didn't die for a cause that people would consider "outdated" 35 years later.

We're not going back, "New South" Republicans. The Voting Rights Act will be renewed. The South will remain accountable for the treatment of its minority population. We will protect minorities from discrimination as long as discrimination exists. We'll fight it like we did in 1965. Or 1865, if necessary...

The recent attack on the Voting Rights Act was a blatant affront committed by a small cadre of powerful Southern Republicans. I was amazed they tried it in an election year. It was racism, right out in front where everybody could see it. And dozens of their rightie fellows went along with it. The only upshot was the major electoral damage Republicans were about to do to themselves. Somebody got the message:

Voting Rights Act Extensions Pass House Despite GOP Infighting

The House yesterday easily approved an extension of key provisions of the landmark Voting Rights Act, after GOP leaders quelled a rebellion within the party's Southern ranks that threatened to become a political embarrassment...

Republicans also sought to strip the act of a provision that requires jurisdictions to print ballots in a second language if the local population includes a large enough percentage of Latinos, American Indians, Asian Americans and Native Alaskans -- groups that Congress found to have faced barriers in the political process.

Powerful Republicans, such as House Judiciary Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), helped block the amendment, which failed 238 to 185. A significant GOP majority -- 181 to 44 -- supported the amendment. "This is a poison-pill amendment," Sensenbrenner said. He added: "We're dealing here with United States citizens. Certainly we ought to give these people assistance."

Guess who didn't agree?

Hefley, Tancredo among 'no' votes

Reps. Joel Hefley, R-Colorado Springs, and Tom Tancredo, R-Littleton, were on the losing side of a 390-33 vote. They said their opposition stemmed from requirements for multilanguage ballots in some communities and extra regulations placed on jurisdictions with past histories of discrimination.

Earlier, all four Republicans had supported a failed amendment that would have stripped away a requirement for ballots to be printed in multiple languages in places with concentrated populations of people not proficient in English.

Meaning the entire Colorado Republican congressional delegation wanted to make it harder for some citizens to vote. Not illegals -- we're talking about American citizens. The sort of crime the Justice Department has to police constantly in the South under the VRA (over 80 times in Georgia alone since the early 1980s). But coming from Tom Tancredo and Bob "Mexican Time" Beauprez, is this really surprising?

Thanks for reminding us, and apparently the whole House of Representatives, why the Voting Rights Act is still necessary. Here's to another 25 years of not giving bigotry a pass.

You'd think Pete Coors, of all people, would know that.

Beer magnate and former Republican U.S. Senate candidate Pete Coors was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and is due to appear in court on the charges next Thursday.

A Colorado State Patrol trooper pulled Coors over after he saw him run a stop sign around the corner from his home in Golden about 11:25 p.m. on May 28.

Coors stopped in his driveway and consented to take a Breathalyzer test. He registered a .088, which is slightly above the .08 legal blood-alcohol limit in Colorado.

"I made a mistake by driving myself home after a friend's wedding celebration," Coors said in a written statement, shortly after news of his arrest was first reported on DenverPost.com. "I should have planned ahead for a ride. For years I've advocated the responsible use of our Company's products..."

Being a union man, I don't drink Coors. Tastes like urine.

And it's not like I want to dump on the guy. Lots of people have made this mistake, including more than one friend of mine. I'm thankful he didn't hurt anybody, and I'm sure he is too.

The moral of the story? You know, the part you tell your kids so they understand? Well...there's not one. And there's not gonna be one. Kind of like Bill Owens' defense-of-marriage sermons, Pete Coors' money still buys a boat-load of right wing silence. That's the problem: more than the personal character stuff, the issue here is hypocrisy. Prove me wrong, "culture warriors."

This just in;

Outed CIA agent Plame sues Cheney, Rove and Libby

The CIA officer whose identity was leaked to reporters sued Vice President Dick Cheney, his former top aide and presidential adviser Karl Rove today, accusing them and other White House officials of conspiring to destroy her career.

In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court, Valerie Plame and her husband, Joseph Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador, accused Cheney, Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby of revealing Plame's CIA identity in seeking revenge against Wilson for criticizing the Bush administration's motives in Iraq...

Rick O'Donnell has to handle his record like a hippie talking about dope to a teenager. Sure things were kind of shady when he ran the Colorado Department of Regulatory Affairs just the way his energy industry benefactors wanted him to, but that's in the past. The higher-ed commission stint wasn't too good either -- crumbling buildings, lawsuits, disastrous vouchers-that-aren't (with more lawsuits), David Horowitz...but that was the Old Rick O'Donnell. The New Rick O'Donnell loves you, your kid's teacher, and -- wait for it -- Social Security.

O'Donnell backpedals on Social Security

Republican congressional candidate Rick O'Donnell tried to take the steam out of anticipated attack ads by acknowledging Monday that he wrote an essay 11 years ago calling for the abolishment of Social Security.

O'Donnell, 36, said he has since changed his position and wants voters to know, before Democrats slam him, that he now favors fixing Social Security, not abandoning it.

His essay, titled "For Freedom's Sake, Eliminate Social Security," was published in February 1995, when he was editing American Civilization, a publication of Newt Gingrich's Progress and Freedom Foundation.

"As we bury the rest of the welfare state in preparation for the 21st century, it is time to slay the largest government 'entitlement' program of all, Social Security," O'Donnell wrote.

Democrats said Monday that they knew about the essay and had discussed how they might exploit it later in the 7th Congressional District campaign that's expected to be one of the hardest-fought in the country. They said O'Donnell's stated change of heart shows he is trying to portray himself to voters as less right-wing than he really is...

He's a crafty little guy with the perfect suit and hair that never, ever moves. But once you take a closer look, things get a little less neat and sparkly...

Answer: Another disaster, but this one is the man-made kind.

And that is very close to home and is of great importance to all of us who live in this valley and beyond. The issue (really a large set of issues and impacts) is the exploration and development of energy resources (oil/gas and oil shale), primarily in Garfield and Rio Blanco Counties, and also directly affecting the up-river areas as well. There are many aspects of what is already happening, and pending, that resembles earlier "boom-bust" cycle in the area -- silver/gold mining in the late 1800s and the EXXON oil shale experience (late 60s-early 70s). The present/immediate future boom portends to have a lot of impacts due to its "extraction-abandon" nature and therefore will almost certainly be followed by a "bust," or economic subsidence, also with high impacts on people, communities, neighboring areas, water & land resources and environment.

I have lived in western Colorado since the 1940s and am a board member of a non-profit primary health care provider. I have also worked for many years overseas helping communities, government agencies and local NGOs develop and work together mitigate the effects of disasters in Central Asia and Africa. It seems to me that the present and pending energy resource exploration and development in this part of western Colorado is very likely to create some very large and complex problems & impacts. You could say that we are in the process of experiencing a relatively slow-onset (over weeks and months, rather than seconds/minutes/hours), man-made disaster. I use the term disaster advisedly, because, like natural disasters, we are not engaged here in any useful effort to learn from the past and apply those lessons. Likewise, there is no movement to involve all of the stakeholders and potential sources of assistance in constructive/productive dialogiue and planning to identify anticipated problems, explore solutions and find & allocate resources needed to effectively address the problems before they become full-blown. Only by bringing together all of the elements that contribute and interact in the problem can sound and relevant comprehensive advance planning be accomplished.

For example, there are problems that will come up from the relatively large amount of labor needed by the energy and energy-related industries. And,. as we all know, labor is scarce here and will come in from outside the area and the demand will likely draw immigrants from south of the US border (with their families) and experienced "roughnecks" from Wyoming and other places where energy exploration and development has been underway for a long time. The problems of such an influx of workers and their families are not simple ones and even though much of the work may be initially seasonal, there will certainly be workers who choose to remain in the area, creating long-term needs and impacts as well.

I have seen a lot of opportunities to mitigate impacts lost, and resources wasted, by the lack of well-coordinated advance planning and implementation. Clearly, sound comprehensive advance planning embraces and integrates all the affected sectors: health, education, housing (short-term and long-term), financial, law-enforcement, social services, environmental management and transportation. Unfortunately, the tendency of industry and government in this sort of situation is to focus on only one or two aspects, failure to involve advocacy groups and the range of possible contributors and service providers at local, county & regional/state levels, and then bluffly say "We have taken care of it." Does this sound like an echo of the aftermath "assistance" for the Katrina disaster? half a dozen times in as many countries.

But when truly comprehensive advance planning, involving all the stakeholders, is undertaken, the results can be amazing. Pre-conceived notions & mindsets regarding how to deal with problems are adapted the new and changing conditions, and solutions tailored to better fit the needs of the beneficiaries, the local conditions and the agendas of the industries and governement agencies, at often outstanding savings and much better results for all.

I have heard/read about a few concerns in GarCo regarding worker housing and transportation impacts, special problems of remote worksites, and an odd comment or two about how not to do "mancamps" (from the EXXON oilshale era). Thus far, I have not heard anyone at the Commissioner or any level mention the high probability of workers being Latino immigrants, and the likelihood of them bringing along their families. The US House of Representative, I believe, recently passed a bill to lower the paybck royalty (to government) from oil shale development to 1%, from its previous level of over 10%. How will this reduction in funding be replaced? How sill the drastic needs for emergency, primary and special health care be provided for workers and families? And, how about the near certainty that significant numbers of the "seasonal" workforce will stay around and need to transition to long-term housing? This in a valley where at present the workers cannot afford to live in the towns where they work and commute from downvalley -- the very place where the "boom" will take place? Already we are seeing the prices for housing of every kind skyrocket.

There are lots of "lessons to be learned" that could and should be applied in the advanced planning process, so that we don't makes the same mistakes over and over again; so that the costs of expected (and unexpected) impacts/problems and solutions can be shared by industry, government (state, county, municipal) and private donor sources.

There are a lot of "turf" barriers to getting this sort of collaborative effort together and make it wor, but it is eminently worth the effort, and can produce great results! It takes people, like me and you, putting pressure on agencies and elected officials to to this.

Most sincerely,

John Barbee   Read More »

The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified in 1868 as part of the process of Reconstructing the defeated South, and preparing its institutions to rejoin a Union of free states.

Immediately after the Civil War, scholar Jon Roland writes in his essay Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to Protect All Rights, the federal Freedmen's Bureau was tasked with researching the uniform application of law thoughout the United States. What they found, among many other injustices, was that freed blacks across the South -- particularly black Union soldiers returning to their homes -- were being disarmed and fined for firearm possession by local officials. This was a clear violation of the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

It was also quite defensible under the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision, which spelled out in starkly racist terms the reasons why blacks needed 'specific laws' to govern them, and why Constitutional protections need not apply to them.

It became necessary to define American citizenship in terms that couldn't be meddled with by the states, so as to ensure that all the other Consitutional rights enjoyed by citizens would be protected. Even after the abolition of slavery in the United States by the 13th Amendment, Dred Scott left holes in the interpretation of the law with regard to who is a citizen. Roland:

May 30 began with Senator Howard proposing to add the citizenship clause to § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment as follows: "All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside." This language was designed to settle the issue raised in Dred Scott -- that is, who are citizens and thus have the bundle of rights appertaining to citizenship. After a raucous debate over making Indians, coolies, and gypsies citizens, the Senate passed Howard's language.

After its ratification, the 14th Amendment nullified the "Black Codes" of the southern states that did not apply equally to all citizens. But the Reconstruction of the South ended with the Hayes/Tilden Compromise of 1876 and the withdrawal of Northern troops. Soon after, the Plessy vs. Ferguson Supreme Court decision gave the states wide latitude to segregate and marginalize racial minorities under the guise of "separate but equal" treatment. The 14th Amendment was vindicated 60 years after Plessy by Brown vs. Board of Education. Most historians consider this latest period of Supreme Court decisions and new federal laws protecting civil rights to be one of the most critical events in our history: closure to the gaping wounds left open by Reconstruction's failure.

Though all of these important debates, as any student of the Civil Rights era knows well, there have been dissenting voices who have opposed a straightforward definition of citizenship and equal protection for those citizens before the law.

As we learned yesterday on Day Two of Colorado's illegal-immigration "Extraordinary Session," their motives haven't changed much.   Read More »

So I don't know what's going to happen in Connecticut. There's enough I don't know about Connecticut politics to fill a warehouse.

But something profound has already happened there -- and the geography is incidental. Can I, you ask, maybe imagine other places where the progressives might gang up and give the public actual choices? Honest people who can tell the truth, win elections and take back this whole everloving country?

Let the sellouts be on notice either way:

DSCC will back CT Dem nominee

In a serious blow to Sen. Joseph Lieberman's (D-CT) reelection campaign, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is likely to back the winner of the Democratic primary in Connecticut, meaning that Lieberman may be left without national allies for campaign money.

A senior Democratic party official confirmed that the DSCC is unlikely to back Lieberman should he lose the primary to Ned Lamont, a more progressive contender in Connecticut who has garnered support from bloggers and has catalyzed his campaign around Lieberman's aggressive position on Iraq.

You see, this isn't infighting. It's much, much cooler than infighting. It's also a proud Colorado tradition, from fiery Dean/Miles precincts in 2004 to the coinage of silver at sixteen to one.

So to arms, underdogs! The epilogue to this story is that you might not always be...

We told you has was going to do this. 180-degree rotation has been achieved, Houston:

Beauprez switches Amendment 38 stand

Congressman Bob Beauprez withdrew his support Friday for a controversial ballot measure that is opposed by much of the business community, prompting a leading supporter to accuse him of betrayal.

Beauprez, the presumed Republican candidate for governor, announced Friday that he will not support Amendment 38, a so-called "petition rights" constitutional amendment that would make it easier for citizens to challenge local government decisions through initiative campaigns. Beauprez endorsed Amendment 38 in April.

His change of heart outraged Douglas Bruce, the anti-tax crusader who endorsed Beauprez earlier this year. Bruce said Beauprez was earning the "Both Ways Bob" label given him by former primary opponent Marc Holtzman.

"He certainly is living up to his reputation," said Bruce, a prominent backer of Amendment 38. "I'm shocked somebody with that reputation put on his shoulders would casually throw away a written promise."

Really? You're...shocked, Mr. The Bruce? We're not shocked.

Should note here once again that we support Beauprez's flip-flop on Amendment 38, which we have always believed to be irresponsible public policy. Having said that, we felt that way from the beginning about Amendment 38 because we read the damn thing. We read the damn thing because as people who try to insert ourselves into Colorado politics we have an obligation to know what the hell we're talking about. We take that knowledge, add our progressive convictions and presto! You know where we stand, and tomorrow you still will.

As for "Both Ways Bob," well...this is pretty much what we mean, folks. Caveat emptor. No slideshow necessary.