This is the last part of a series of posts analyzing the swing state Colorado.
Conclusions
Colorado is much like the previous state analyzed in this series: Virginia. Both states were seen until recently as Republican strongholds and rightfully so; President George W. Bush handily won both states in 2004 and 2000.
Yet in 2004, both states showed signs of shifting Democratic. Virginia barely moved Democratic even as the South swung heavily against Senator John Kerry. As for Colorado - it actually shifted 3.7% more Democratic, against the national tide. Indeed, in 2004 Mr. Kerry performed better in Colorado than he did in Florida.
This is the fourth part of a series of posts analyzing the swing state Colorado. It will focus on the complex territory that constitutes the Democratic base in Colorado. The last part can be found here.
Democratic Colorado
In American politics, the Democratic base is almost always more complex than the Republican base, a fact which is largely due to complex historical factors. Democrats wield a large and heterogeneous coalition - one which often splinters based on one difference or another. The Republican base is more cohesive.
The same is true for Colorado. Republican Colorado generally consists of rural white Colorado and parts of suburban white Colorado. Democratic Colorado is more difficult to characterize.
A look into President Barack Obama's strongest counties provides some insight:
Weekly Pulse: GOP Plays Chicken with the Debt Ceiling
By Lindsay Beyerstein, Media Consortium blogger
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) is calling for a "big showdown" over the upcoming vote to raise the nation's debt ceiling to $14.3 trillion from $13.9 trillion. The debt ceiling is simply the maximum amount the government can borrow.
This is the third part of a series of posts analyzing the swing state Colorado. It will focus on the swing areas in Colorado - the parts that will vote for both Democrats and Republicans. The fourth part can be found here.
Swing Colorado
The swing areas of Colorado lie on the edges of the Democratic base in Colorado, which forms a rough "C" shape (more on this in the next post). They can be mapped as below:
This is the second part of a series of posts analyzing the swing state Colorado. It will focus on the Republican base in Colorado. The third part can be found here.
History
Once upon a time, Colorado was a loyally Democratic state. Influenced by prairie populism and anger against powerful Republican businessmen in the East Coast, the state usually voted further left than the country at large. The trend continued for seven straight presidential elections.
This ended at around 1924. Colorado voted twice against President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and throughout the remainder of the twentieth century remained a mainstay of Rocky Mountain conservatism. As late as 2005, a Republican politician might have good reason to see this as a permanent condition.
This is the first part of a series of posts analyzing the swing state Colorado. The second part can be found here.
Starting six years ago, a massive Democratic wave swept through the state of Colorado. Starting with the election of former Senator Ken Salazar, the Democratic Party took control of almost every state office there was to take. The results of this transformation are pictured in the table above.
If liberals were ever looking for a good subject over which to call for their smelling salts and fainting couches, holy crap here it is. Martin Joel Erzinger, an "ultra-wealth" fund manager hit-and-runs a cyclist leaving him seriously injured. The local Republican DA, Mark Hurlbert has declined to press felony charges opting for misdemeanor counts instead. His reasoning reads quite literally like something out of the medieval times' treatment of nobility:
"The money has never been a priority for them [DD note: the victim is a medical doctor]. It is for us," Hurlbert said. "Justice in this case includes restitution and the ability to pay it."
Hurlbert said Erzinger is willing to take responsibility and pay restitution.
"Felony convictions have some pretty serious job implications for someone in Mr. Erzinger's profession, and that entered into it," Hurlbert said. "When you're talking about restitution, you don't want to take away his ability to pay."
See, as long as the esteemed and noble lord pays the peasant for the damage, no harm should befall his excellency. Problem solved.
Rachel Maddow's documentary, "The Assassination of Dr. Tiller," premiered on Monday. The film tells the story of how radical anti-choicers besieged Dr. George Tiller and his abortion clinic for decades, fostering an atmosphere that legitimized murder in the eyes of a fanatic.
Kay Steiger of Campus Progress notes that while Tiller's colleagues blame Roeder, they hold the larger anti-choice movement responsible for creating a climate of hate and intimidation. Roeder cultivated relationships with anti-choice terrorists, including a woman who went to jail for a botched attempt on Dr. Tiller's life. He also had links to Operation Rescue, the radical anti-abortion group that tried unsuccessfully to shut down Tiller's clinic for decades, through blockades, frivolous criminal complaints, and unrelenting harassment of clinic workers and their families.
Operation Rescue's crusade against Tiller caught the attention of conservative talk show host Bill O'Reilly who excoriated Dr. Tiller on the air 28 times, dubbing him "Tiller the Baby Killer."
A federal grand jury is investigating whether Roeder was actually involved in a conspiracy to assassinate Tiller.
Ground-breaking
Vanessa Valenti of Feministing was impressed by how straightforwardly the documentary dealt with women who have abortions and doctors who provide them:
When we talk about abortion on television ... the real lives who are actually affected by this issue - abortion care providers and the women who have had abortions - are completely left out of the conversation. And this film was about someone's life, a life that was dedicated to helping, to saving, other people's lives.
Fighting back
In AlterNet, Aaron Gouveia writes about his confrontation with anti-abortion protesters who called his wife a murderer as the couple approached an abortion clinic in Brookline, MA. The couple was there to terminate a much-wanted pregnancy because doctors had learned that the fetus was suffering from "Sirenomelia," or Mermaid Syndrome, a rare congenital defect that causes the legs to fuse together. This particular fetus had no bladder or kidneys, and doctors said there was no chance of survival.
When a protester called his wife a murderer, Gouveia confronted them.
"So you're yelling at my wife for doing nothing more than having a nearly dead baby inside her?" Gouveia asked the protesters.
One of the protesters threatened to call the police on Gouveia because he was standing on the sidewalk yelling at them.
Lynn Paltrow has a thought-provoking essay in RH Reality Check about the radical agenda behind Amendment 62, a Colorado ballot initiative that would declare a fertilized egg to be full-fledged human being. If Amendment 62 passes, it would outlaw abortion, in vitro fertilization, and legally complicate any medical procedure on a pregnant woman that might affect the well-being of her fetus.
Paltrow argues that the bill's backers should be called "Fetal Separatists":
This organization claims that its goal is to end the "injustice of abortion." In fact they are promoting a Fetal Separatist movement, one that is trying to legally separate pregnant women and the fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses inside of them. Their efforts are dangerous to all pregnant women including those who go to term, those who expect confidential medical care, and those who want to preserve their right to life and liberty.
The argument that eggs and fetuses may be treated as if they are legally independent of the women who carry them has been used to deprive pregnant women of their status as full constitutional persons.
Supporters of the measure say they want to extend rights to eggs and fetuses, but as Paltrow points out, this kind of thinking reveals another aspect of their agenda: Diminishing the rights of pregnant women by elevating the "rights" of fetuses. Paltrow gives examples of women who were imprisoned or harassed by authorities who felt they had an obligation to control the woman to protect her fetus. In one case a woman was imprisoned in a Florida hospital because authorities thought it was the best thing for her fetus. In another incident, fetal separatist arguments advanced to justify dispatching a sheriff to the home of a woman who was attempting to have a home birth.
According to the latest poll, 20% of Coloradans support Amendment 62, 56% oppose it, and 25% remain undecided.
CO abstinence program tied to anti-gay groups in Uganda
Speaking of the religious right in Colorado, Andy Kopsa of the Colorado Independent reports that a teen abstinence program known as WAIT Training, which has received over $8 million in federal funds since 2005, has ties to a virulently anti-gay group in Uganda led by pastor Martin Ssempa.
Ssempa is one of the leading proponents of legislation known as the "Kill the Gays" bill in Uganda. The bill would not only make homosexual sex a capital offense, it would also force Ugandans to turn in their gay friends and neighbors. So far, the bill hasn't passed. The U.S. government officially opposes the legislation, but some major conservative Christian groups in the U.S. supported the bill. Of course, they now claim they didn't actually support killing LGBT people, they just wanted to help Uganda become a more godly nation.
WAIT worked with Ssempa to build a website, print business cards, and develop a video and other promotional materials. WAIT said it was unable to provide Kopsa with copies of any of the materials that it worked on with Ssempa. WAIT maintained formal ties with Ssempa until January of 2010, when they decided they didn't want to be associated with him any more, perhaps because the media scrutiny became too intense. The New York Times, the Washington Post, and other prestigious media outlets ran op/eds condemning the anti-gay bill in January of 2010.
A major Ugandan newspaper recently published a "top 100" list of alleged homosexuals under the headline "Hang Them," according to Laura Gottesdiener at the Ms. blog. Since the story ran, several of the subjects have been attacked.
The dynamic is very similar to the persecution of Dr. Tiller. First targets are identified and held up to hate and ridicule. Some are intimidated and go away. Those who don't are marked for violence.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
-Ken Buck, Colorado's Republican Senate candidate, was once an assistant federal prosecutor.
-There was an Aurora gun dealer who sold guns illegally and had 37 counts thrown at him. This was a violation of federal law, nothing to sneeze at.
- Ken Buck didn't pursue the prosecution.
-Ken Buck shared information with the defense team. That's right, he tipped them off. How's that for law enforcement? Then he resigned. Was he forced to?
-Ken Buck was reprimanded... by a Republican U.S. Attorney. A partisan witch hunt? Not so much.
-The illegal gun dealer benefited from Ken Buck's unethical, sleazy behavior. He was convicted of a misdemeanor.
Below is a great ad by the Public Campaign Action Fund, showing how Colorado Teabagger Ken Buck used his position in the US Attorneys office to help a gun dealer charged with 37 criminal counts escape justice--before taking the man's money in the form of a campaign contribution to run for the Senate.
Buck thought it proper to trash his own case to the defendant's lawyers, instead of fighting to send the bad guys to prison for putting together a gun-running operation. The result of Buck's behavior, which he has admitted was "wrong" (euphemism for corrupt, or being too stupid to live?), is that the defendant only was found guilty of one misdemeanor. From 37 criminal charges to 1 misdemeanor? No wonder this guy ponied up cash for Buck's Senate run.
This is the first article in a continuing series by the NRDC Action Fund on the environmental stances of candidates in key races around the country.
Today, we examine Colorado's 4th Congressional District, covering the High Plains of northeast Colorado, plus growing cities like Greeley, Fort Collins and Loveland. Home to wheat and cattle farms, it's a traditionally rural and reliably Republican area -- John McCain carried the district in the last election. Democrat Betsy Markey bucked tradition in 2008, when she defeated three-term incumbent Republican Marilyn Musgrave. Markey is being challenged by Republican State Representative Cory Gardner, in what most describe as a tossup race.
As a freshman, Rep. Markey has been a solid environmental voter, receiving a 79% rating from the League of Conservation Voters (LCV), meaning she voted pro-environment on four out of every five opportunities. Markey voted for the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), writing in the Denver Post, "Colorado is blessed with vast energy resources, and as the renewable energy sector is already thriving and growing in northern and eastern Colorado, this bill brings unique benefits to our region. In fact, our corner of Colorado stands to see greater benefits from this legislation than most other areas of the country." And Markey hasn't changed her tune on the campaign trail, writing on her website, "We have a unique opportunity at this time in our history to change the way we power our country and Colorado is poised to become a world leader in this effort....The future of renewable energy is vital to the future of our national security."
Pretty much everything in Cory Gardner's record in the Colorado legislature and in his campaigning suggest that he'd oppose clean energy measures and a healthy environment. According to Colorado Conservation Voters' 2010 scorecard, Gardner voted against legislation promoting clean energy production in Colorado; even against assistance to homeowners for energy efficiency and renewable energy upgrades; and against creating new jobs in clean energy. On the campaign trail Gardner has spent his time attending a $1,000-a-plate fundraiser co-hosted by a BP lobbyist, collecting campaign cash from companies like Valero Energy, (one of the major forces behind the effort to repeal California's landmark clean energy and climate legislation), and lamenting that cap-and-trade legislation "will cost farmers and ranchers, industry in this country, more money than they can afford, and the result will be that they'll move overseas."
The truth, according the Department of Agriculture, is that the benefit of climate legislation to farmers "easily trump" the costs. The USDA analysis shows that ACES would create "annual net returns to farmers rang[ing] from $1 billion per year in 2015-20 to almost $15-20 billion in 2040-50." Gardner is refusing to recognize the huge opportunities that clean energy could provide to the citizens of the 4th district. In stark contrast, Rep. Markey gets it. Voters should be aware of the clear differences between these candidates.
The NRDC Action Fund believes that it is important for the public in general, and the voters of specific Congressional districts, be aware of this information as they weigh their choices for November.
President Barack Obama and Congressional leaders spent this week trying to stand up to the oil industry. In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Obama pushed BP to siphon $20 billion into a escrow fund that will cover liability claims, and Congress grilled BP CEO Tony Hayward and other oil bigwigs as to how they were protecting the country's coastal waters.
While these developments are promising, mopping up the current crisis and guarding against future incidents will take more momentum than a speech, a meeting, or a few hearings can deliver.
$20 billion
BP's escrow fund indicates that the company is willing to take some responsibility for the damage this spill has visited on the Gulf Coast. But not everyone in Washington is pleased with the fund. As TPMDC's Eric Kleefeld writes, "some Republicans have come out strongly against it-with the sum total of charges being that it will turn into a political slush fund procured through dirty Chicago thug tactics that will be paid out to ACORN."
Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) became the poster boy for this sentiment when, at a Thursday hearing, he apologized to BP for the president's actions. TPM sheds some light on the Congressman's possible motivation. It seems Barton might have his own interests at heart, not the needs of the spill's victims (or of the Republican Party-by the end of the day, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) forced Barton to retract his apology).
"Barton's number one career campaign contributor, Anadarko Petroleum, has 25% ownership in the well where the April 20 rig explosion occurred," Justin Elliott writes. "The firm, which has given Barton $146,500 over the years, has been sent a bill by BP for cleanup costs."
Clean-up coasting
As far as the clean-up efforts, Mother Jones' Mac McClelland reports that the company is not doing all it can for Elmer's Island Wildlife Refuge. McClelland talked to one clean up worker who said:
"They're up to 120 guys on Elmer's now, but I can't see any considerable difference. They're only working five sites and it's eight miles of beach. No one seems concerned about cleaning it up. The contractors are getting their money; they don't care. They've got all these people out there, but they're not accomplishing anything."
So far it doesn't seem like BP-or the oil industry-is learning from these failures, either. Also at Mother Jones, Kate Sheppard reports that as bad as BP's clean up response has been, at this week's hearing, the public "got a glimpse of how ridiculous it was on paper." The clean up plan, Sheppard writes, referenced a deceased sea turtle expert and ways to protect walruses and sea lions, which do not live in the Gulf Coast.
"It gets even worse," Sheppard says. "The other four oil giants are using almost the exact same plans."
The next disaster?
BP, at least, needs solid disaster plans, and not just for spills like the one in the Gulf. As Truthout reports, the Deepwater Horizon site isn't the only BP project that poses a safety risk. In Alaska, the Prudhoe Bay oilfield is host to "a long list of safety issues that have not been adequately addressed," reporter Jason Leopold writes. Marc Kovac, a BP employee, told him:
"The condition of the [Prudhoe Bay] field is a lot worse and in my opinion a lot more dangerous. We still have hundreds of miles of rotting pipe ready to break that needs to be replaced. We are totally unprepared for a large spill."
More energy disasters
These sorts of dangers are not limited to BP's operations or the oil industry. As Forrest Whittaker writes for The Texas Observer, "In the past three months, each of the three major fossil fuels-coal, oil and natural gas-has had its own Kaboom! moment. It's almost like Mother Nature is trying to tell us something about our energy policy."
In addition to the BP spill, Whittaker is thinking of the Upper Big Branch coal mine explosion in April, and two more recent blowups of natural gas wells in Texas.
"On June 7, workers struck a 36-inch gas pipeline near Cleburne, causing a massive eruption of flames seen miles away," he writes. "One worker was killed, and eight others were severely injured. An eyewitness described the heat from 300 yards away as "unbearable." The next day, another pipeline explosion in the Panhandle killed two workers when their bulldozer punctured another gas pipeline."
GritTV reports on yet another oil spill-this one in Utah, where a hole in a Chevron pipeline starting pouring thousands of gallons of oil into a Salt Lake City creek a week ago.
"Oil is a messy business, even when it's legal," filmmaker Joe Berlinger tells GritTV's Laura Flanders.
Colorado drilling
In Colorado, on-shore drilling is most definitely legal, and BP is looking to restart natural gas drilling there, the Colorado Independent reports.
"[BP] found the jackpot," Josh Joswick, a Colorado organizer, said. "Not only are they on top of the most productive coal-bed methane field in the United States, they are paying next to nothing compared to what they would be paying elsewhere."
The BP disaster in the Gulf is resonating here, too. "Several much smaller incidents in Colorado and neighboring states are quietly highlighting the need for increased onshore oil and gas drilling regulation," the Colorado Independent's David O. Williams writes.
There is an opportunity right now for lawmakers at the federal and state level to push for real reform; it's not clear yet that anyone's jumping at that chance.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Mulch for a complete list of articles on environmental issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Pulse, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
In 1993, anti-choice extremists murdered a doctor, burned 12 buildings, set off a bomb, and blockaded 66 abortion clinics. The following year, President Bill Clinton signed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. FACE made it a federal crime to obstruct a clinic or intimidate patients and providers.
Wendy Norris of RH Reality Check reports that, in the intervening 16 years, the Justice Department has only prosecuted 19 civil and 45 criminal cases under FACE. Abortion provider Dr. George Tiller was assassinated last year by a hardcore clinic protester, and many asked if the FACE Act was being enforced.
Norris's story is part of a series on FACE published by RH Reality. The next installment will explore how one radical anti-choice protester has managed to terrorize the same clinic for 30 years with apparent impunity. Kudos to the Guggenheim foundation for funding this important and timely series, and to the John Jay College Center on Media, Crime and Justice for providing editorial input.
The Pill and I
May 9th is the 50th anniversary of the FDA's approval of Enovid, the first birth control pill. Care2 contributor Ann Pietrangelo, who recently celebrated her own 50th birthday, reflects on how the Pill changed history:
I went through my entire reproductive life in a way that my female ancestors, indeed my own mother, could scarcely have imagined. The Pill and other contraceptive choices were always available to me. I have never had to face the dreaded abortion decision, but throughout my reproductive years, I had the peace of mind of knowing that such a decision, difficult though it would be, was mine to make. I, and millions of women of my age group and younger have been most fortunate. We've lived a different kind of life than would have been possible in another time and another place.
Anti-"personhood" coalition kicks off
A new group has united to fight Colorado's proposed "egg as person" ballot initiative, Joseph Boven of the Colorado Independent reports. The organization calls itself Protect Families, Protect Choices (PFPC). If Amendment 62 passes, it would effectively outlaw abortion, stem cell research, and even some forms of contraception. Women who drink, use drugs, or attempt suicide could face criminal charges if the ballot initiative becomes law.
The Colorado measure is one of of many similar measures proffered by anti-abortion activists in state legislatures around the country. The last time Coloradans voted on whether to give fertilized ova the full complement of rights under state law, 73% voted against the measure. If the bill passes, will frozen embryos be able to own property? Could Coloradans evade their creditors by signing their houses over to zygotes?
Will health care reform save Democrats?
In TheNation, Katherine S. Newman and Steven Attewell tackle the question on everyone's mind: Will health care reform change the political fortunes of President Barack Obama and the Democrats? They warn that Democrats shouldn't expect short-term political gains, even if reform is ultimately regarded as a success story:
For some time to come we can expect the firestorm of opposition to health care reform that is unfolding today to persist, even from people who stand to benefit from the provisions of the new law. The rose-colored glasses through which we sometimes view the legacy of the New Deal and the Great Society often obscure how contentious the debates were or how long they continued after the passage of key legislation. We should not be deterred by the noise coming out of the Tea Party. The weight of history is against them.
Passive aggressive red states
Suzy Khimm of Mother Jones sees trouble ahead: So far, at least 15 states have refused to create high-risk health insurance pools. The refusniks are red states hostile to health care reform. High-risk pools are a stopgap to provide coverage for people with preexisting conditions. Insurers are free to discriminate against sick people until 2014, and high risk pools are supposed to cover those who can't buy coverage in the meantime.
Khimm explains that the federal government will have to step in and create high-risk pools if states aren't willing to do so. Health care reform left a great deal of power in the hands of states. The stage has been set for a grim power struggle, a bureaucratic battle of attrition.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
After 15 years of declining compliance, several states are being brought into line with the National Voter Registration Act, a key federal election law that could help hundreds of thousands of citizens register to vote every year. Though some states are coming around due to lawsuits filed by voting rights organizations, others are voluntarily beginning to adhere to the NVRA. This week Project Vote released two new publications that explain what states are doing wrong and offer best practices for improvement.
STATE BLOGS
