Just about a week ago, I wrote about how Tom Tancredo was going to replace Josh Penry in the GOP Gubernatorial primary against Scott McInnis. I wrote about how dangerous a candidate Tancredo was going to be and how McInnis was going to wish Penry was still in the race.

 While I stand by my analysis of Tancredo, what I didn’t see coming was the swift kumbaya moment that formed this week. Apparently McInnis, Tancredo, Josh Penry, Dick Wadhams and other Republican leaders came together to arrive at a party platform that would shrink the GOP Gubernatorial field back down to one former Congressman.

 Denver Post Columnist and KOA Talk Show Host Mike Rosen wrote about the potential platform on Thursday. While the details are interesting because it walks a fine balance between fiscal and social policies, it doesn’t address my big question.

 What I am wondering is who called the meeting and who crafted the compromise. To me, that is the most important detail.

 Let’s think about the possible answers and the ramifications. 

1. Scott McInnis – It would make sense for McInnis to call this meeting and make these arrangements to settle any shot at a significant primary challenge from Tancredo. However, if that is the case, why didn’t this happen earlier, without provocation? If McInnis considered himself the front runner, why didn’t he get everyone behind this platform earlier? Waiting until now makes it look like he’s only behind these ideas because of Penry and Tancredo. The timing does not put McInnis in a position of strength, even if they are his ideas.
2. Dick Wadhams – To me, it makes the most sense for Wadhams to have made this happen. He’s not in a position to tell Tancredo what to do, but he is in a position to find out what would make him support McInnis, and then broker the deal with McInnis, and encourage Penry to sign on for future influence. If it goes well, everyone, especially the Colorado GOP, wins.
3. Penry or Tancredo – I’m eliminating the chances that either of these guys called the meeting or came up with the idea mainly because if they had the idea, they would have used it against McInnis instead of offering it as a potential compromise. While both will probably end up endorsing McInnis through this plan, neither are totally sold on him enough to have called the meeting.
4. Anyone Else, including Major Funders – The odds here are actually not that bad. I could see a couple of major funders getting together to make this happen. It still makes more sense to me that Wadhams would have called the meeting, but maybe he was encouraged by some big money GOP supporters that urged him to do whatever it takes to stop any significant primary challenge. I could even see some big money supporters mandating the basics of the platform. That’s a job more suited for the actual leaders of the party, but it’s not difficult to fathom that some funders would want to be involved.

So why is this little guessing game relevant? Well, in my eyes, who ever orchestrated and pulled off this platform meeting and eventual compromise truly leads Colorado’s Republican Party. Establishing the identity of that leader is important because that’s whose shoulders the success of 2010 will rest. Leadership can be abdicated, meaning you can have the good idea and give the mantle to someone else, but the big players will always know who really set things straight.

So, who do I think it is?  I have a hunch, but we know where those have gotten me lately. Let’s just say that Colorado’s GOP may not be the rudderless ship that some had previously thought. This should certainly make 2010 much more interesting.

By now I am sure you have heard that State Attorney General John Suthers announced an official legal opinion on Tuesday, stating that medical marijuana can be taxed. Many marijuana dispensaries, reacting to the announcement that their product can now be taxed, embraced the decision, hoping it will help legitimize the industry. 

So why would marijuana dispensaries be happy about seeing their product taxed? 

I think this is more about embracing future potential rather than worrying about the effect of taxes on your patients. The ability to tax medical marijuana will change the opinions that most cities have about dispensaries. Instead of being driven from cities with over-regulation, the red carpet will be rolled out for these new cash cows.

But this doesn’t answer why the dispensaries would be happy about this new tax. I think the big reason is that this is an extraordinary step towards full legalization of marijuana. Some would argue that we have already legalized it, with just a few necessary hoops to jump through. Opponents may be worried that this is going to lead to greater addiction and more problems.

But, if you think marijuana and other drugs can be addictive for users, wait until you see how addictive pot tax dollars are for cities. Once they get a taste, they will only want more, and they will do just about anything to get more. No matter how you roll it, cities will be lining up to attract dispensaries faster than 22 year olds suffering from chronic back pain at a dispensary.

This mentality will help grease the skids for more lax laws regarding how to get marijuana, applying just enough “medical” terms to make it look just savory enough.

Suthers’ ruling was never about the legal definition of prescription. This has been about getting control over an industry that quickly spun out of control from cities and communities. Attorney General Suthers can’t regulate it, but the decision he was able to make was much more powerful than any regulation.

His decision makes dispensaries indispensable for cities and then gives cities the means to regulate the industry, once the legislature provides a few handy guidelines. I know some lawmakers have been reluctant to tackle this topic, but trust me, it will happen. Citizens would like it to happen, but now cities desperately need it to happen so that they can safely make more money off of the issue.

The only question for me that remains is will taxing dispensaries be a gateway drug for cities? You know how addictive their personalities can be. Is it just a coincidence that there is a new tax on soft drinks being floated at the state capitol? All we need to do is tax Cheetos at a higher rate and the pot smokers of Colorado will single-handedly pull our state out of a recession. I guess Bill Ritter was right. Colorado can recover if we just think green!

Residents of Denver are no strangers to controversial mega trials.  When Oklahoma City bombers Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols needed a place to be tried, Denver stepped up and hosted two of the most controversial and highest secured trials in United States’ history.

Now, with Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to host the trials of suspected 9/11 masterminds in New York City, the concept of controversial, high profile trials are back.

I’m going to skip the arguments being made about if the 9/11 trials should be civil or military.  I can see both sides, and I don’t know enough about the law to really weigh in with a good opinion.

However, I do believe that I can chime in on the idea of New York being able to host the trials of the people suspected of committing the biggest crime in the nation’s history.

To that point, I think yes, New York can host these trials and it can be done safely and it does not have to be the complete circus that some critics claim it will be.

First of all, looking at security, if any city can keep this secure, New York can.  Do you honestly think any officer in the NYPD will think twice about doing whatever it takes to keep their city secure during these trials?

This is the same city that keeps its own citizens safe when leaders from all over the world come in to visit the U.N., and when one million people come to Times Square every New Year’s eve.  Also, it’s not like the federal government will let the city handle the security by itself, so I really don’t think security will be an issue.

When it comes to the media circus, I think much of that can be controlled by one simple decision. Will the trials be televised a la OJ Simpson and Judge Ito, or will cameras be kept outside, like they were for the OKC trials? If you keep the cameras out, the circus feeling will be lessened, not entirely eliminated, but decreased dramatically.

To the point that the trials will allow those accused a platform to speak their controversial vitriol towards America, this is part of the whole idea of bringing these people to justice. Way back on September 12^th, 2001, as a nation, we said we wanted to bring those responsible to justice. Brining anyone to justice, at least in the United States, allows them to defend themselves and say whatever they like. 

We’ve had controversial trials before in American history where unsavory types were able to speak their own verbal garbage. However offensive it may be, this country has always survived because it’s not about their message.  It’s about the freedom to say what you want and the more important freedom to ignore what you want. 

The fact that our country lets lunatics of all shapes and sizes say whatever they want is exactly what these particular lunatics hate about our country. Censoring them would feel much more comfortable to them, because it would be more like how their home countries would treat the situation. 

No, I think it’s time we show these true enemies of the state what this country is all about. It’s about having the right to say whatever you want in defense of the indefensible. And it’s also about the rights of a jury to say whatever they want. While I can’t guarantee it, I think what the jury will say will be far more valuable.

I’ve never been shy about admitting when I am wrong. It happens often enough that I get quite a bit of practice. So what am I wrong about this time?

Well, my last blog entry asserted that the Republican Gubernatorial Primary wasn’t going to happen since Josh Penry had dropped out of the race. Then lo and behold, Westword’s Michael Roberts reported that former Congressman Tom Tancredo said that he fully intends to run for Governor, giving Scott McInnis the primary that Josh Penry refused to give him. 

This is a best case scenario for Governor Bill Ritter and a worst case scenario for Scott McInnis. 

In Tancredo, McInnis has a primary opponent that has absolutely nothing to lose, and could care less what anyone else in the Republican Party thinks about him. That’s a very dangerous opponent to have.

Whether Tancredo can actually beat McInnis or Ritter isn’t the issue. Tancredo is a media magnet and an effective campaigner. He will rattle McInnis in ways his campaign cannot even begin to imagine.

Remember, McInnis was the guy who was rattled getting asked questions by Craig Silverman. If Caplis and Silverman got under his skin, Tancredo’s going to feel like the Ebola virus.

I realize Scott McInnis will have a big 527 backing him and that 527 will certainly paint Tancredo as an extremist, but I do not think that will matter.

Tom Tancredo is used to running uphill in a campaign. He ran for President as a one issue candidate, but he was still able to get enough traction to last through a few debates and make the rest of the candidates respond to his one issue. He’s comfortable being an underdog and seemingly doesn’t mind the inevitable attacks.

Here’s the other thing, at Tancredo’s age, he’s not worried about his next political job or his legacy. So as bitter as the 527 attacks will get, it’s not like he has to protect his future like Penry did.

In the end, it’s hard to think Tancredo can beat McInnis in the primary. However, he can bruise, batter and abuse McInnis to the point that he will be very tenderized for the general election for Bill Ritter.

The one big favor Tancredo will grant McInnis is the political center. McInnis can go straight to the center against a very right minded Tancredo in the Republican primary.

That stance may hurt McInnis in the primary, but he’ll have no shot out “righting” Tancredo. Going to the center in the primary will help McInnis in the general election with Ritter, but that’s like saying a 15 round sparring match gets you ready for the title bout the next day. 

As I said in the beginning, I could be wrong, again. But I honestly think I have a shot at being right on this one. Whether he likes it or not, McInnis will have himself a primary, and this time it’s not with a former protégé, it’s against a fellow former Congressman. And a fellow former Congressman that isn’t afraid to see it get ugly. In fact, I’m fairly convinced he likes it that way.

I noted back when the Senate and Governor primary frenzy began a few months ago that I didn’t think most primary races would find the August 2010 finish line.  As astute as that opinion seems, I didn’t think the Republican Gubernatorial primary would end this early either. I thought they would at least get to January.

Only Josh Penry and the people closest to him know the real reasons why he dropped out of the governor’s race this week. Yes, I know we heard the official story, but we don’t really know for sure why he suddenly dropped out.

The reasons proposed by some include weak fundraising and the national election results on Nov. 3^rd. But the reason that intrigues me most, the threat of damage from an “independent political machine” that was set to inflict if Penry continued his campaign.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the threat from this 527, or maybe it’s a 501 c 4,  played a big role in Penry’s decision. If that’s the case, then it’s one of the saddest developments in Colorado politics to happen in a long time.

No matter if you are a Republican, Democrat or an Unaffiliated voter, this should offend you. Part of your decision of who should be governor of this state was made by the equivalent of a street gang who assaults victims with media instead of baseball bats.

Our campaign finance laws in the past were far from perfect, but at least you knew who your opponent was and could fight them directly.

But this new reality with 527’s, and now 501 c 4’s, means that if a group that is unaffiliated with your opponent has more money than a group unaffiliated with you, you are toast. How do you fight that? 

It’s illegal to coordinate your own “independent” groups, so you can’t create your own weapon to compete against the other guys’ groups. And it’s not realistic to raise enough money to fight your primary opponent and his groups, and then your general election opponent and their groups.

Sheesh, even Sen. Michael Bennet doesn’t has enough money for that. Ok, he probably does. But that’s not my point.

What I find so frustrating with this law, is that there’s no real legal way to fight it. You have to hope that somebody who supports you decides to have no affiliation with your campaign and decides to run a shadow campaign against your opponent instead. But if all of your major supporters simply want to work for you in a positive way, you are out of luck. 

So if this aspect of campaign finance reform law is such a travesty, why don’t we just change the law? Well, that’s complicated. Not really, it’s quite simple. The folks that won their races with these laws in place write the laws.  Why would they change the laws that helped get them elected?  Exactly.

Now, I am a realist, so I understand that there will always be an ugly side of campaign financing. If its not 527’s, it’ll be something else.

But while I understand that every fight can’t be fair, I would at least like to see the two fighters combat directly, and not be like some wrestling match when some random guy runs into the ring when the referee isn’t looking to smack the other guy with a chair. 

 It isn’t fair in fake wrestling and it shouldn’t be fair in politics.

I hope it didn’t cost the American people overtime rates for our lawmakers in the U.S. House to work late on Saturday to pass a Health Care Reform package. I cannot remember the last time lawmakers in either the House or the Senate worked late on a Saturday night, and I have to say I was mystified why Speaker Pelosi would have the House work late this weekend to pass a law that will sit on the Senate’s doorstep for at least a month, maybe more.

This has been the hardest part of the Health Care Reform debate for me to keep up with, the timing. I have yet to really get my arms around it. For the most important and historic legislation to be proposed in a generation, the timing of this whole thing has been very weird.

Let’s go back to the beginning. The entire proposal was supposed to get out of the Senate Finance Committee in time for everything to be voted and approved before the August recess. When conservative Democrats balked in committee, the process stalled and lawmakers got an earful when they went back home in August.

After a month of tumultuous town hall meetings, lawmakers went back to work, but not before the entire nation heard from President Obama as he addressed a joint session of Congress and laid out what he expected to see in a Health Care Reform package.  That was September.

Later in September, things went back and forth over the public option. The option died, then was brought back to life, then it died again, and now it lives, but only in the House. At this point characters in cheesy soap operas think the many lives of the public option are getting ridiculous.

So then, last week, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announces that she has the votes to pass an historic, 1,990 page heath care reform package. Twelve days later, Speaker Pelosi votes to pass this historic legislation, sending it to the Senate.

If the House only needed 12 days, then the Senate will obviously want to take action on it this week, next week at the latest, right?

No.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that the Senate would likely be able to pass something before the end of the year, maybe. And it will likely look very different than the current House proposal.

I guess all I am looking for, and I imagine in vain, is a little consistency. If one leader thinks it’s urgent, then why doesn’t everyone else agree? If the issue is so important that it must be taken slowly, why are some leaders passing 2,000 page legislation packages in less than two weeks?

Maybe I’m the one being too hasty. The last time legislation this important and this voluminous was passed this quickly was TARP, The Economic Stimulus Package, and the Patriot Act, and those all turned out to problem free, so why should I worry?

Well, if something does get passed soon, I hope it covers antacids. I have a feeling folks on both sides of the aisle will need them in bulk.

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.