• OpenCongress brings together, for the first time in one place, all the best data on what's really happening in Congress:
• Official information from Thomas, the website of the Library of Congress, made available by GovTrack.us:
• all the bills, Members of Congress, votes, committee reports, issue areas, and more.
• News articles about Congress from Google News. Blog posts about Congress from Technorati and Google Blog Search.
• Campaign contribution information from OpenSecrets.org, the website of the non-profit, non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics.

SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources. Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office.

The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack. “There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”

A British defence source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike. “All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them.

"Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection."

--Abraham Lincoln, first inaugural address

Here we have another man who, when confronted with a minefield, methodically plots his way through as opposed to foolishly charging in or running away.

I haven't always agreed with Colorado Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff's attempts to seek an accommodative middle ground on contentious issues (see my various postings on last summer's immigration special session). But I do believe--more than ever this morning--that he does so sincerely and contemplatively, with an objective sense of the issues that I as a knock-your-teeth-out street level partisan, you know, am probably lacking. I'm grudgingly forced to concede in these moments that he makes an excellent Speaker of the Colorado House.

Today at 1:30PM on the west steps of the Captiol, he's putting himself between the two camps in the bitter fight over Amendment 41, probably the only way he can at this point--as the sagely Pols put it a couple of weeks ago, by "calling in the grownups."

On Sunday, February 25, 2007 at 1:30pm, House Speaker Andrew Romanoff (D-Denver) will announce plans for a "ceasefire" in the battle over Amendment 41. Two groups on opposite sides of the ethics initiative will join the Speaker in seeking guidance from the Colorado Supreme Court.

Since its passage at the ballot last fall, Amendment 41 has sparked a firestorm of debate – and considerable confusion – among elected officials, public employees, and their families. State lawmakers have offered different proposals to implement the constitutional amendment. Speaker Romanoff will introduce a formal resolution on Monday asking the Supreme Court whether – and to what extent – the legislature has the authority to clarify Amendment 41.

My feelings about Amendment 41 are angrily crystal-clear all over this blog. I believe that Amendment 41 is the product of a compelling mandate for reform from Colorado voters. I believe the plain language of the Amendment never banned scholarships or, for that matter, anything other than what it says is prohibited: "breach of the public trust for private gain." I believe opponents of 41 have latched onto the most extreme interpretations of the law imaginable to service their own ulterior desire to kill it--not because of "the children who are hurting," but because they like their lobbyist-paid breakfasts, free plane tickets, free Pepsi Center skybox seats, and waiting lobbying careers of their own the moment they're out of office. I noted with amusement when the same Attorney General who predicted the sky would fall on Colorado's college-bound students began sheepishly backpedaling on his own stupid opinion once the foundations started calling BS. 

But even though merit-based scholarships are now completely in the clear per court rulings, every news article on 41 still talks about "uncertainty over scholarships" in the first two paragraphs. The open editorializing in ostensible "news coverage" of 41 (you know who you are) has been hugely disappointing. It also dismays me that the biggest recipient of lobbyist gifts in the leadership before 41 is now leading the idiotic-interpretation-we-can't-do-anything-about camp, which plays right into the hands of the lawyer-lobbyists seeking a wholesale injunction against the law. All that before we even start talking about the malevolent blue-on-blue ulterior motives that some people may have in this fight--here again, you know who you are.

So that's the ugly place we find ourselves today, and I know many readers will disagree strenuously or even be downright pissed off at me for the above two paragraphs. Cool. I just wanted to be clear on how I feel about the situation before I thank Speaker Romanoff for his insight and leadership in making this unassailable move forward--before divisions over 41 become a GOP-style schism for our side.

So yes, Speaker, I completely support what you're doing, I welcome and have no fear of the Supreme Court's guidance to settle the question, and I'll abide by their decision as it is incumbent upon everyone to do now: even if that means having to say I'm sorry.

First-term state Sen. Steve Ward gets it. The ex-Marine and "recovering lawyer" gives things "plain meanings" until simplicity leads to "absurd results."

That happened with Amendment 41, Colorado's constitutional ethics reform. Lobbyists and some politicians used to accepting their favors cried wolf about 41's broad language. It will keep scholarships from cops' kids, they howled. It will outlaw fundraising for injured firefighters.

Ward knew that was absurd. So Thursday, the conservative Republican from Littleton bucked his party's leaders and joined liberal Denver Democratic Rep. Rosemary Marshall to sponsor a bill that defines and implements 41.

The legislation says specifically that student financial aid, academic awards, disaster relief and fundraising for the sick are not covered by 41.

As if they ever were.

Attorney General John Suthers contributed to this lobbyist-driven hysteria with a December advisory. Suthers advised that Amendment 41 might prohibit professors from accepting Nobel Prize money. Suthers opined that government employees' kids could not accept scholarships.

Since then, the AG has found case- by-case ways to allow scholarships for kids of public employees and elected officials...

"I really don't want to be flogged politically any more than I already have been," Ward said. He probably can't avoid the beating. Ward understands why he and almost everyone voted for 41. They did it to keep folks from violating the public's trust for private gain, not to keep the children of government employees from going to college or to keep the Red Cross from giving food to rescue workers...

Ethics reform should be no one's political tool. Ward gets that too. He never felt comfortable with lobbyist-paid breakfasts that used to open most days of the General Assembly. Nor was he fond of the other free meals and sports and entertainment tickets that lawmakers took.

"I had a rule that nobody bought me lunch," Ward said of his days as an Arapahoe County commissioner and Glendale mayor and city councilman. "And for 12 years, nobody bought me lunch. It was just an easy thing for me to deal with. The culture down here is in shock. Somehow, it's an infringement on someone's free speech. They can talk to a legislator, but they can talk better when they're having lunch? I don't get that."

Neither did the others who voted for 41. They still don't. For them, ethics reform is about what it has always been.

Clean government, not political games.

In this morning's Glenwood Springs Post-Independent:

City gift ban ordinance aimed at avoiding Amendment 41 confusion

Glenwood Springs is looking at taking advantage of its home-rule status to create its own gifts prohibition code and avoid the confusion surrounding Colorado's Amendment 41.

City Council will take up the ethics ordinance at its meeting Thursday night.

Colorado voters passed Amendment 41 in November. It has become embroiled in controversy since then out of fears that it is resulting in unintended consequences, such as prohibiting children of public employees from receiving scholarships.

The amendment provides an exemption, however, to home-rule counties and municipalities "that have adopted charters, ordinances or resolutions that address the matters covered" by it.

Suppose every home-rule entity in the state were to do this. Wouldn’t it be a win for everyone? Think about it: local governments are compelled to adopt meaningful ethics guidelines that conform to the voter’s clear intent regarding 41, yet none of their employees would be affected by 41’s variously stupid (and dubious) interpretations.

Seems to me that would leave the naysayers with a lot less to prattle on about, which would be a positive development for all concerned.

For some senators, enacting Amendment 41 may very well cramp their style.

Senate Leadership

Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald (D-Coal Creek)
Reported $3,211.22 in gifts, including:

• $2,618 for a mission to Israel concerning water and homeland security from the Allied Jewish Federation
  
• $133 for a room at the Silvertree in Snowmass during the annual Colorado Trial Lawyers Association meeting
  
• $204 for three tourism posters from the Capstone Group, a private wealth management firm

Senate President Pro Tem Peter Groff (D-Denver)
Reported $12,215 in gifts including:

• $5,000 for a legislative trip to China from the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office of Kansas City, Missouri
  
• $2,668 for tickets to 16 pro and college sporting events from various lobbyists
  
• $2,000 for two health disparity conferences from a lobbyist and a pharmaceutical company
  
• $1,150 for 6 rounds of golf with various lobbyists
  
• $300 for tickets to the circus

Senate Majority Leader Ken Gordon (D-Denver)
Reported no gifts.

Senate Minority Leader Andy McElhany (R-Colorado Springs)
Reported $6,693.93 in gifts, including:

• $2,618 for in-kind expenses for a trip to Israel from the Allied Jewish Federation of Colorado
  
• $1,763 for expenses to a health care conference by the Colorado Health Foundation
  
• $1,250 for two Denver Bronco tickets from Verizon Wireless
  
• $577.93 for reimbursement of expenses to speak at convention by the Colorado Association of Homebuilders

Senate Assistant Minority Leader Nancy Spence (R-Centennial)
Reported no gifts.

CoCo's Wendy Norris also included statements from these legislators on "implementing" Amendment 41. Surprisingly, you can predict what they said about 41 by the size of their gift list.

You're right, maybe that's not so surprising.

Next up: ugly repudiation imminent, blogger declares confidenty.

See also:

Stop Attacking Jared Polis
Colorado Confidential demolishes Amendment 41 hypocrisy
Amendment 41: don't believe the hype, part III
Amendment 41: don't believe the hype, part II
STOP the passive aggression on Amendment 41
Amendment 41: don't believe the hype, part I