April 11, 2013 | 0 comments
March 28, 2013 | 1 comment
September 9, 2011 | 5 comments
September 8, 2011 | 3 comments
September 7, 2011 | 4 comments
* * * * *
Former Colorado state rep. Rob Witwer has an excellent article in National Review on what the Weekly Standard’s Fred Barnes has dubbed the Colorado Model.
The Colorado Model refers to liberal activists’ political strategy to make Colorado safe for Democratic candidates for years to come. The strategy, as Barnes described it, consists of seven different “capacities”: 1) “to generate intellectual ammunition,” 2) “to pursue investigations,” 3) “to mobilize for elections,” 4) to combat media bias, 5) to sue strategically, 6) “to train new leaders,” and 7) “to sustain a presence in the new media.” The Colorado left now has all seven in place, according to Barnes.
James Dellinger and I examined the rapid conversion of Colorado from red state to blue state in our most recent profile of George Soros’s Democracy Alliance. (Capital Research Center’s Foundation Watch, December 2008)
The left accomplished this transmogrification by pumping millions of dollars into select activist groups and institutions. The money came from the Colorado Democracy Alliance (CoDA), a state-level spinoff of the national Democracy Alliance, a billionaire leftists’ club.
Funders of the takeover push included Pat Stryker, Tim Gill, and Al Yates. Newly minted congressman, Jared Polis (D-Colorado), while not a funder, was involved in planning the onslaught.
An excerpt from Witwer’s article:
In hindsight, what Colorado Democrats did was as simple as it was effective. First, they built a robust network of nonprofit entities to replace the Colorado Democratic party, which had been rendered obsolete by campaign-finance reform. Second, they raised historic amounts of money from large donors to fund these entities. Third, they developed a consistent, topical message. Fourth, and most important, they put aside their policy differences to focus on the common goal of winning elections. As former Democratic house majority leader Alice Madden later said, “It’s not rocket science.”
In a larger sense, this is also a story about the unintended consequences of campaign-finance reform. In 2002, Congress passed McCain-Feingold. That same year, Colorado citizens enacted Amendment 27, a constitutional amendment that capped state-legislative contributions at $400 per donor. By lowering the amounts candidates could raise and spend, these laws effectively took message control out of the hands of candidates and handed it to outsiders.
Campaign spending in large quantities can now be accomplished only through the “independent sector” - a collection of nonprofit organizations that has stepped into the role once occupied by political parties. […]
The cost of participation in elections through the independent sector is high, especially at the state level. Political nonprofits are subject to byzantine tax, corporate, and accounting rules, and require constant guidance from lawyers and accountants. That guidance is expensive, which is why there’s no such thing as a “mom and pop” 527. Small and medium donors need not apply. […]
By leveraging big dollars against traditionally sleepy local races, Colorado Democrats raised the ante to a level once seen only in federal campaigns. The influx of congressional-level cash has turned state-legislative races inside out. What used to be a local affair of meet-and-greet coffees and door-to-door campaigning now consists of paid staff, television and radio ads, glossy mailers, and platoons of hired door walkers. […]
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?