Author Archives: ColoradoPeakPolitics

Politico has pieced together a fascinating read of the palace intrigue surrounding Nancy Pelosi’s successful battle to reclaim her role as House Speaker.

U.S. Rep. Ed Perlmutter, it turns out, was totally out of his league in trying to defeat her, and instead caved to a weak deal Pelosi herself maneuvered.

Perlmutter was under siege from Pelosi’s supporters on and off Capitol Hill, and Pelosi was the one who offered term limits as a way for rebel Democrats to save face, while giving her enough votes to drown out the minority Republicans in the January House election.

The deal Pelosi offered, she will only serve four years as speaker, voluntarily term-limiting herself.

No, the Democratic caucus won’t actually vote to make the term limit official, Pelosi gave her word.

That means she will be 82 years old when she steps down, having served 35 years in Congress.

Perlmutter jumped at the chance to wriggle out of the jam, and persuaded enough rebels to give Pelosi the 218 votes she needs to become speaker.

The headline on the story says it all:

‘We were shocked as sh–‘: How Pelosi crushed the Dem rebels

What the article doesn’t explain, which we looked up for PeakNation™, is that a lawmaker’s pension is based on the number of years in service, and the annuity amount is based on the highest three years of a member’s salary.

The House Speaker makes a lot more money than a mere congress critter — $223,500 compared to $174,000 a year.

By promising to only serve two terms — four years — Pelosi will retire at the top of the financial chain.

So, not only did Perlmutter break his pledge to vote against her, he actually ensured taxpayers will pay a bundle for her years of service as Speaker when she finally retires.

Jared Polis’s inaugural ball will perfectly symbolize how we expect he will govern our state over the next four years — with arrogance and disrespect, laziness and the foul odor of athletic shoes.

Polis’s ball is not the typical swearing-in event for a governor, or any office holder, for that matter.

It won’t be a somber occasion that honors the office or the man on Jan. 8.

Instead, it will mock.

The Blue Sneaker Inaugural Ball is exactly as it sounds, an inauguration ceremony and reception that calls for cocktail attire and blue sneakers.

Why?

Because Dear Leader prefers to wear the same blue sneakers everyday with his pajamas, suits, and tuxedo, and now so should everyone else.

Blue sneakers aren’t nearly as cool as the Mao suit worn by Chinese communists to honor their revolutionary leader infamous for his mass killings.

But, it is befitting of Polis’s socialist nerd movement.

Mara Sheldon, a spokeswoman for the ball, said the theme will “build on Jared’s focus of moving Colorado forward into the future and being a governor for everyone.”

Not everyone can afford expensive sneakers, and not everyone likes to wear sneakers with cocktail attire. This isn’t an “everyone” statement, it’s Polis behaving like a teenager.

We’re sure the men probably won’t mind, but women will have to suffer the indignity of clomping around in that hideous hue of blue clunky footwear in their little black cocktail dresses.

Luckily, it’s not an actual ball so no dancing will be required.

Ooops. Looks like Democrats, as usual, forgot their commitment to hiring diversity as, according to Wellington Webb, none of the newly-elected Democrats have appointed any African Americans to their cabinets or staff positions. And, don’t worry, we aren’t rumor mongering here. Webb is naming and shaming on Facebook. Holy cow. See below. This would be delicious if it wasn’t actually kinda racist of Democrats to completely freeze out blacks.

This is on you, Nancy Pelosi Morgan Carroll. It’s your part now. Keep it up, Mr. Mayor. Someone should hold Democrats accountable for their hypocrisy.

The unraveling of the ridiculous Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule is finally underway, but let’s set that issue aside for a moment whilst we blast an annoying, persistent bit of media bias.

According to Colorado Politics, the rollback is to the dismay of “environmentalists and other clear water advocates.”

If there really is such a thing as “clear water advocates,” that suggests there are folks out there who actually advocate against clear water.

And when the media uses the phrase clean water advocates or clean air advocates, they are again suggesting there are those who want dirty air and water.

This phrasing is so common among journalists, we don’t know if it’s just laziness or pure bias.

They are constantly insinuating that if you’re against government overregulation or crazy rules, you’re either Godzilla bent on destroying the world, or a Republican, who hates clean air and water.

If you want to protect your property or livelihood, you must be anti-environment, they presume.

Memo to the media: Everyone breathes air and wants clean air, we all rely on water to exist and prefer it to be clean and clear.

In the future, just say advocacy groups. Or better yet, tell the truth and say activist organizations of the Democratic Party.

You’re not fooling anyone, and you’re only showing your own bias.

So, stop it.

Now, back to the WOTUS rule.

The original intention was to protect coastal waters by regulating inland streams, but it was created by the Obama administration. Therefore, it was littered with government control over private property and even declared ditches located hundreds of miles away from the coast as a navigable waterway that could pollute the ocean.

The proposed new rule excludes seasonal streams and defines protected waters as “relatively permanent flowing and standing waterbodies that are traditional navigable waters in their own right or that have a specific connection to traditional navigable waters, as well as wetlands abutting or having a direct hydrologic surface connection to those waters.”

It’s a little better. Folks have 60 days to comment on the proposed rule.

With Jared Polis and Democrats set to take over (shiver) the governing of our state, radical environmentalists aren’t even trying to tread lightly about their intentions to cripple our energy economy.

In fact, they’re sort of bragging about it, in an extortionist, blackmailish kind of way.

Colorado Rising says they are already up and running with another setback measure for the 2020 ballot, just like the one voters soundly rejected about five minutes ago.

That is, unless Polis cracks the whip, as they’re also demanding, and bids the legislature or local lawmakers do it for them.

The only thing that surprises us, is that the enviros are coming so late to the game. Polis said in interviews after the election the only choice energy will have under his reign is to spend a fortune fighting ballot measures to block the overreaching setbacks radicals demand, or sit down with lawmakers and agree to overreaching setbacks.

We’re not sure if that play fits into the extortion, or blackmail category. Polis is starting to sound like Marlon Brando in “The Godfather,” making offers no one can refuse least they wake up in bed with a dead horse head. Or worse.

The University of Colorado’s elected Board of Regents met today to approve the contract of new Buffs head football coach Mel Tucker. Tucker was most recently the defensive coordinator at the University of Georgia, a program that has become a national powerhouse.

Today should have been a formality, as the Board of Regents unanimously approved both of the past two Buffs head football coaches’ contracts. But did the Democrat Regents turn it into a clown show. BuffZone’s Brian Howell has the greatest, erm, hits in his recap of the clusterf$ck of a meeting (emphases ours, but seriously, read the entirety of Howell’s piece; your jaw will hit the floor):

“Griego began discussion by asking athletic director Rick George and chancellor Phil DiStefano to elaborate on a portion of Tucker’s contract that requires “administering the football program in a manner that places an emphasis on player safety and does not expose players to undue or unnecessary risk…”

Nevertheless, Shoemaker voted against the contract because of what she views as a lack of safety in the game.

“This is not a vote against Mel Tucker,” Shoemaker said. “I wish him well. I hope he’ll be spectacularly successful here and I also hope he and his family are genuinely happy living in Colorado. However, I need to vote against the contract because coaching contracts are about the only opportunity the regents have to weigh in on the football program, which is a campus-level responsibility…. All this talk about toughness, physicality and hitting makes me personally nervous. Why? Because I’m a mother and a grandmother, and I’ve studied some of these issues. Hard hits are the things that reliably lead to head trauma…“

It’s football. It’s supposed to be rough. Have they seen football?

Citing the $10 million subsidy, Kroll said:

“What more could the university do with that money? … The answer is that for every dollar we subsidize coaches making six- and seven-figure annual salaries, we burden more students with loan debt or even worse, no education at all. For every dollar we subsidize coaches’ salaries, we push the cure for cancer and other life-threatening illness that much further away…“

Eventually, CU Regent Chair, Republican Sue Sharkey, stepped in, reminding Kroll that he gladly accepts free tickets to the very same CU football games that, admittedly, don’t cure cancer, before closing with the following:

“The purpose for the meeting today was to vote on a contract for the football coach,” Sharkey said. “I don’t agree that we should use that as an opportunity to posture our personal options on athletics or the football program. Our purpose there today was to vote on a contract. I would have preferred that these conversations would have taken place in the appropriate committee. That’s why we have committees, to have opportunities to have presentations and be well-informed on issues.”

Oooh, burn. Sharkey rightfully noted that Kroll was woefully uninformed about this issue. In the end, Tucker’s contract was approved by a 6-2 margin, with Shoemaker and Kroll voting no and Griego abstaining.

To recap:

1) Griego didn’t want Tucker’s contract approved because football can lead to injuries (ban cooking while you’re at it);

2) Kroll voted no because football doesn’t do anything to cure cancer (though Kroll’s own biography cites attending football games as his favorite thing about CU Boulder); and

3) Shoemaker, with her, uh, unique perspective as a mother and grandmother, is worried about head trauma, taking exception with Tucker’s introductory comments about CU needing to be more physical on the defensive side of the ball.

These are three elected officials whose job it is to help govern and guide the University of Colorado system, and they embarrassed both the university and themselves today. See, the football program is an entirely different pot of money than the cancer research pot of money and, in fact, the football program brings in money for the school. But they should know that. For shame.

Former CU beat writer and current BSN Broncos beat writer Ryan Koenigsberg summed things up quite nicely in a Twitter response to Kroll’s comments, with a nod to Billy Madison:

“What you just said is one of the most idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your incoherent response were you even close to a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”

It seems to be shocking no one but her, but Democratic Aurora City Councilwoman Nicole Johnston, who mysteriously found her car in a ditch and, then, called the police on herself so the officers could slap her with a Driving While Impaired citation, did not win her bid for mayor pro-tem.

In a Facebook post, she claimed that the sitting Mayor of Aurora endorsed her and Democrat City Councilwomen Crystal Murillo and Allison Hiltz, also graduates of far-left campaign booster Emerge Colorado, joined Republican City Councilwoman Angela Lawson in voting for Johnston. We get all of the Emerge ladies sticking together, but it would appear that Lawson may have forgotten who brought her to the dance. Regardless, their votes should tarnish their records. Johnston was unqualified and irresponsible. She wasn’t just pulled over for a DWI, but actually ran her car into a ditch and, then, again, called the police on herself. Exactly how drunk was she initially?

Those who voted against Johnston should be applauded for keeping another Morgan Carroll carbon copy out of a leadership position. But this must be terribly disappointing to Carroll, who has been pulling strings for Johnston since the beginning.

The climate change debate is unquestionably one of the hottest-button issues when the economy is roaring of our time. Seemingly every study released to the general public has its champions and detractors, the latter of whom often point to the politicized nature of the debate leading to biased academic conclusions.

It would appear those detractors have a point. Western Wire recently interviewed University of Colorado political science professor Roger Pielke, Jr. for his read on the potential for politicized outcomes to climate-related “studies,” and his perspective is interesting:

“The importance of the climate issue doesn’t mean that we get to discard or ignore conventional standards of scientific integrity,” Pielke said.

“I think that the climate community has become so politicized that there’s this expectation that there’s good guys and bad guys, and if you’re asking questions about climate science you must be a bad guy, or you may be giving ammunition to the skeptics. So I think there is this natural tendency in that issue to push back against any and all criticism, full throttle,” he said.

Pielke went on to point out specific “research” conducted by ostensibly objective academics that failed to so much as footnote the potential for conflicts of interest:

Pielke pointed to Prof. Katharine Hayhoe, one of the lead authors of the just-released Fourth National Climate Assessment, who published an opinion piece in the Washington Post outlining the five myths about climate change she hears most frequently.  In her first point, Hayhoe took issue with comments that climate scientists are “driven by the money they receive” by former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) on CNN’s State of the Union.

Hayhoe said she would work in a different industry if money were a primary concern but stated that she does for-profit “climate-focused consulting” while she is not teaching. She is the Founder and CEO of ATMOS Research & Consulting, whose listed clients include the Union of Concerned Scientists, Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and Federal Highway Administration.

What a coincidence that Professor Hayhoe’s purportedly academic conclusions dovetail perfectly with the explicitly stated goals of her consulting clients. Barf.

The lesson in here is quite simple: before accepting supposedly academic research as “truth” or “authoritative” in the climate debate, follow the money. You might be surprised with what you find. Or maybe not, sadly.

Bathe? Seriously?

As Jared Polis begins the relocation process from Washington, D.C. to Colorado, we are here to help him learn about the state he will soon be governing, beginning with this lesson.

Dude, we don’t know how big your bathtub is at home, and for all we know, you could have an olympic-sized pool in the master bathroom.

But please, don’t show up at the Glenwood Springs pool with a bar of soap to take a bath. That’s just gross.

Hundreds of people swim and soak here daily, they don’t want to bathe with anyone’s toddlers.

These hot springs aren’t holes in the ground in the middle of nowhere for camping hippies to take their annual bath. They are, as the article you shared implies, tourism destinations.

Some have slides, others are for swimming laps, but mostly, folks like to soak in the hot springs piped into the concrete pools to relax.

We would encourage you to actually visit one once you become governor to better acquaint yourself with the local customs.

And for the love of God, leave the loofah sponge at home.

Dozens of former U.S. Senators, including four from Colorado, are urging their colleagues to set aside partisan politics and stay focused on governing and keeping the nation secure.

That’s what the upper chamber is for, keeping the affairs of state civil and on a slow, steady course, while their colleagues in the House bicker and fight, pass legislation willy nilly, and scream for resignations and even impeachment when they disagree with someone.

So why the letter now?

The advice is solid, but obviously missing is the word “impeachment.”

It’s no secret House Democrats, especially those newly elected ones, are spoiling for a fight with President Trump. Many probably believe that’s why they were elected in the first place.

If one were of a partisan mind (present!) one might suspect the letter signed by 32 Democrats, 10 Republicans and two independents, it would be nudging in favor of impeachment.

But we read it quite the opposite. Plus, the signatories, with a few exceptions, are noted for their statesmanship leadership, rather than partisan rancor.

That most were Democrats, presumably speaking to fellow Democrats, we see the letter as more of a warning against rash actions. Like impeachment. House Republicans successfully impeached President Clinton, and ended up energizing Democrats to throw them out of office.

What we read between the lines is a cautious warning against jumping on the partisan bandwagon to impeach Trump.

Here’s the entire letter. Judge for yourself.

Dear Senate colleagues,

As former members of the U.S. Senate, Democrats and Republicans, it is our shared view that we are entering a dangerous period, and we feel an obligation to speak up about serious challenges to the rule of law, the Constitution, our governing institutions and our national security.
We are on the eve of the conclusion of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation and the House’s commencement of investigations of the president and his administration. The likely convergence of these two events will occur at a time when simmering regional conflicts and global power confrontations continue to threaten our security, economy and geopolitical stability.
It is a time, like other critical junctures in our history, when our nation must engage at every level with strategic precision and the hand of both the president and the Senate.
We are at an inflection point in which the foundational principles of our democracy and our national security interests are at stake, and the rule of law and the ability of our institutions to function freely and independently must be upheld.
During our service in the Senate, at times we were allies and at other times opponents, but never enemies. We all took an oath swearing allegiance to the Constitution. Whatever united or divided us, we did not veer from our unwavering and shared commitment to placing our country, democracy and national interest above all else.
At other critical moments in our history, when constitutional crises have threatened our foundations, it has been the Senate that has stood in defense of our democracy. Today is once again such a time.
Regardless of party affiliation, ideological leanings or geography, as former members of this great body, we urge current and future senators to be steadfast and zealous guardians of our democracy by ensuring that partisanship or self-interest not replace national interest.
Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), Bill Bradley (D-N.J.), Richard Bryan (D-Nev.), Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-Colo.), Max Cleland (D-Ga.), William Cohen (R-Maine), Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Al D’Amato (R-N.Y.), John C. Danforth (R-Mo.), Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.), Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), David Durenberger (R-Minn.), Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), Wyche Fowler (D-Ga.), Bob Graham (D-Fla.), Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Gary Hart (D-Colo.), Bennett Johnston (D-La.), Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.), John Kerry (D-Mass.), Paul Kirk (D-Mass.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), Larry Pressler (R-S.D.), David Pryor (D-Ark.), Don Riegle (D-Mich.), Chuck Robb (D-Va.), Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), Jim Sasser (D-Tenn.), Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), Mark Udall (D-Colo.), John W. Warner (R-Va.), Lowell Weicker (I-Conn.), Tim Wirth (D-Colo.)