Yes, Democrats Should Want The RNC In Denver Too

As the Denver Post’s Allison Sherry reports:

In its attempt to woo Republican officials to Denver to host the Republican National Convention in 2016, Denver put a party in a Broncos-bedecked bag.

At the Republican National Committee’s winter meeting held here this week, a handful of cities were throwing schwag, amenities, appetizers and alcohol to party bigwigs in hopes of winning the ultimate prize: The chance to host 50,000 Republicans, VIPs and guests for five days ahead of the next presidential race.

The RNC expects to make its decision around the time of its summer meeting, in August.

The Post’s Lynn Bartels reports that Democrats in Colorado, as well as competitor host city Las Vegas, back their counterparts’ respective bids–with a fair share of smack talk, of course.

…Nevada Democrats back efforts by state Republicans to host the RNC in Las Vegas that year, according to a November memo to RNC chairman Reince Priebus.

“The reason is simple,” they said. “Putting the national spotlight on Nevada Republicans for a week-long national convention will do more to damage the Republican Party’s brand than anything Democrats could possibly do.” [Pols emphasis]

Here’s the full statement on Denver’s bid to host the 2016 Republican National Convention from Colorado Democratic Party chairman Rick Palacio:

“While we may disagree on matters of public policy and politics, I support Chairman Call, and his Party’s efforts, to bring the Republican National Convention to Denver,” Palacio said.

“As we learned from 2008, a political convention of this size can mean increased revenue to the small businesses of our state, as well as help to showcase our world-class city,”

“However, I would caution the GOP; as long as their party demonizes immigrants, ostracizes women, and pushes an outdated and extreme agenda, nothing, let alone a convention, will help them win over the independent minded voters of our great state.” [Pols emphasis]

Bottom line: there is absolutely no good reason for Democrats to oppose the Republican National Convention coming to Denver in 2016. Partisan leanings aside, the 2008 Democratic National Convention was a huge and sustained economic boon to the city of Denver and state of Colorado as a whole. It would be hugely counterproductive for Democrats to oppose an event that will result in millions of dollars in the pockets of every kind–and we mean every kind–of Colorado business. When such opportunities present themselves, smart leaders put aside partisanship and take the money.

But if that’s not enough to stay your partisan rectitude, consider this: Colorado is the home of the nationally-recognized (and feared) “Colorado Model” of well-organized and highly effective Democratic-aligned political groups (see: Adam Schrager and Rob Witwer’s Blueprint). Bringing the entire national Republican establishment to their proverbial parlor could be considered an epic opportunity. In fact, if we were the RNC, we might be a little worried about that.

But in terms of a downside for anyone in our state? No, we can’t really see one.

View the original article here

An interview with Tim Hoover, who left The Denver Post Friday

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

After a six-year run at The Denver Post, as a reporter and editorial writer, Tim Hoover left the newspaper Friday to be Communications Director for the Fiscal Policy Institute. It's a certainty that Hoover's fair-and-accurate writing will be missed by reasonable progressives and conservatives alike.

This week, Hoover answered a few questions via email.

How long were you at The Post? And at previous journo jobs? How long were you in journalism?

Hoover: "I was at the Post just short of six years, having started in January of 2008. I worked at The Kansas City Star for seven years as a statehouse reporter. Before that, I worked at the Tulsa World and The McAllen (Texas) Monitor. All told, I was a professional journalist for 20 years. My experience does go back further, though. I was an intern at The Albuquerque Tribune (which is how I know Lynn Bartels from 20-something years ago), an intern at The Daily Oklahoman and an intern for the Oklahoma Capitol News Bureau. I was also once a stringer [freelance writer] for The New York Times. And, of course, I worked at my beloved school paper, The Oklahoma Daily, at the University of Oklahoma, where I was a reporter and eventually the editor."

Why would you leave such a prestigious position at The Post? Were you worried about the future at the newspaper?

Hoover: "I left the Post because I had to think about the future. I will have to work for at least another 20 years before I can retire. It was time to start thinking long-term about the path forward. I enjoyed being on the editorial board. It is a position of great responsibility, and you get to rub elbows with U.S. senators and occasionally foreign dignitaries and all manner of world-class minds. I was also treated well on the board and have great respect for my colleagues. My decision to leave transcended all that."

What are a couple of your favorite memories of news reporting or opinion writing at The Post?

Hoover: "As with a magician's code, we don't reveal publicly who wrote which specific editorials. It's supposed to be a consensus process and involves collaborative writing at times. I will say, however, how amusing it is when people think certain writers pen specific editorials because of their supposed political leanings and it happens that the piece was completely conceived and written by another writer with diametrically opposite political views. Editorial writers, like all people, are three-dimensional.

"I can say, however, that I especially enjoyed writing one blog piece with my byline about a very overwrought TV report on a state-owned airplane. It was fun to dissect the TV story, and it got a big reaction in the world of state government and politics.

"As for stories as a reporter, I think my best work was done scrutinizing claims made about the state budget, whether it was asserting that Gov. Bill Ritter had hired thousands of government employees when he hadn't or claiming that certain businesses would be harmed by the removal of special tax breaks when in fact they admitted either they weren't hurt at all or weren't even affected by the changes. I enjoyed writing stories about a candidate for governor who embellished his past career as a small-town police officer and then backpedaled when put under the spotlight. I had a lot of fun reporting at the Post, and I'd just note that it followed stints at several other newspapers where I worked on lots of great stories. I am fortunate to have had the opportunity to cover state politics and government at two major American newspapers, though my career covering many beats spanned two decades at multiple newspapers, small and large."

What’s your response to conservatives who are saying that your move to PR proves you’ve been biased all along?

Hoover: "I didn't really give it much thought. I am on good terms with many conservatives, and a number of them were very congratulatory about my move. It all comes down to the individual class a person has. You make some people angry as a reporter if you are doing your job correctly. It's all part of the package."

What advice would you give to a young person who wants to be a journalist?

Hoover: "That is a tough question. I don't know if I could honestly encourage someone to go into the industry if they are not already pursuing journalism. I think I would tell them that they should only pursue journalism if they are so passionate about it they don't think they want to do anything else. And if they do go into the business, do not do it in a half-assed way. We live in a time when anyone can be published, and so it has given rise to 'pseudo-journalists,' wannabe bloggers' and hacks who work, if they get paid at all, for partisan operations or stealthy partisan donors. Many of these people couldn't find a courthouse a block away with a map, couldn't cover a fire, flood or shooting, have never had to write a story about a zoning hearing, school board or city council meeting or sit through hours of legislative committee hearings and floor work. They have not ever had to be real reporters. They don't do quality research nor is their work scrutinized heavily by editors above them. They are lazy and sloppy and biased, and it is all the more reason why there need to be actual, trained journalists to go out and gather the news. If a young person still wants to be a real reporter despite all of the hardships they will face, then I would encourage them."

Who will win: Romanoff or Coffman?

Hoover: "I would say Coffman is very vulnerable because of his newly drawn district and the fact that he has had to do a tightrope act on so many issues that has not pleased either side of the political spectrum. But so much of this could depend on what happens nationally. The Democratic brand has suffered greatly in the last several months because of the Obamacare rollout fiasco. It's hard to say how that translates here in Colorado, and it is a long way to November."

Any other thoughts?

Hoover: "My former colleagues still in the newspaper industry work far harder and under far more stressful conditions than most people realize. I would ask that readers and the public at large give them some well-deserved recognition at times. It's almost Thanksgiving. Let's be thankful we still have newspapers covering public affairs. And remember, some poor group of reporters and editors has to work on Thanksgiving and Christmas. The news doesn't stop for the holidays."

Follow Jason Salzman on Twitter @bigmediablog

View the original article here

GOP 2016 Denver? Come On Down!

As the Denver Post's Allison Sherry was first to report:

The Colorado GOP is preparing to make a bid for Denver to host the 2016 Republican National Convention — potentially delivering the state a repeat of the economic boost it received when it hosted the Democratic National Convention five years ago…

In addition to Denver's already proven record at hosting the massive four-day international event that draws roughly 50,000 visitors, a 2016 GOP convention in Denver would be apropos, [Colorado GOP chairman Ryan] Call said, because it will be "bookends of eight years of an Obama regime."

"A Republican convention in Denver will not feature Greek columns at Mile High Stadium," Call said, referring to the stage built in 2008 for President Barack Obama's acceptance speech. "But it will showcase the issues important to the West and to America."

CBS4's Shaun Boyd:

The GOP leaders believe Denver has a good shot at landing the convention since the cityhas experience with such an event. Denver hosted the 2008 Democratic National Convention where then-Presidential candidate Barack Obama received the party nomination.

Most Denver residents have fond memories of the 2008 Democratic National Convention held at the Pepsi Center in downtown Denver, despite the inevitable inconvenience of hosting such a major event in the middle of a functioning metropolis. A report not long after the 2008 convention showed an economic benefit to the Denver metro area of some $266 million from the Democratic convention, and there's every reason to believe Republicans coming to town in 2016 would be similarly great for the local economy.

Whatever your choice of party may be, at a certain level, a party is a party.

View the original article here

The Daily Show Asks Denver Voters Why They Did Not Vote In Recalls

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Last month's recalls occurred in what was generally Colorado Springs and Pueblo.  No part of Denver was included in the districts that voted.  That of course did not stop the Daily Show from canvassing people on the 16th St. Mall in Denver to figure out why they did/did not vote in the recalls.  

View the original article here

Another Moderate Voice Departs Denver Post

A press release this morning from the Colorado Fiscal Institute spells more bad news for fans of objectivity at the state's newspaper of record, The Denver Post:

The Colorado Fiscal Institute is pleased to announce that Tim Hoover – most recently a member of The Denver Post editorial board – has been named Communications Director.

“Tim’s experience and insight will be invaluable in promoting our analytic work,” said Carol Hedges, Colorado Fiscal Institute Executive Director.  “We look forward to having Tim on board to help communicate the importance of widespread prosperity to the vitality of Colorado’s economy.”

He will develop communications strategy and implement the organization’s media, social media and community outreach plans to advance public policies that result in greater economic prosperity for all Coloradans.

“I am excited to be joining an organization with such expert knowledge of Colorado’s state budget and its multiple conflicts and challenges,” said Hoover.  “I’ve worked for many years analyzing and writing about state tax and fiscal policy, and this opportunity gives me the chance to work alongside top talent in the field.”

Hoover has 20 years of experience in the media industry, having researched and reported on public policy, government and politics for major newspapers including The Denver Post, The Kansas City Star and The Tulsa World.  A graduate of the University of Oklahoma’s Gaylord School of Journalism and Mass Communication, he has won multiple awards for his reporting.

Back in May, the Denver Post's editorial board lost Curtis Hubbard, who left the paper to join local PR house OnSight Public Relations. The much more conservative Vincent Carroll succeeded Hubbard as head of the paper's editorial board, and since then we've witnessed a slow but steady shift to the right in the paper's editorial leanings. The departure of Tim Hoover, former political reporter and by all estimations a fair and moderate member of the editorial board, is very likely to accelerate that conservative slant.

Between increasingly slanted news coverage and an editorial board moving similarly rightward, we'd say the Post has finally found a market to sell newspapers to.

View the original article here

Denver Post Helps Partisan Pollsters Fool You

The Denver Post’s Kevin Simpson reports on a new poll from GOP-aligned polling firm Magellan Strategies. Not surprisingly, this poll shows this year’s school finance initiative, Amendment 66, in “serious trouble.”

A survey by Louisville-based Magellan Strategies found that only 7 percent of 600 likely voters said they were “extremely informed” about the proposed amendment, which would revise the way education funds are parceled out to school districts and put more money toward expanded kindergarten, preschool, at-risk students and English-language learners.

Focusing on the tax ramifications, which would provide for a two-step state income tax increase, the poll asked two questions. First, it asked one with minimal information about the amendment and then a second question with more detailed information about the proposed new tax structure.

To the general question, 44 percent indicated they would oppose the measure, compared with 38 percent in support and 18 percent undecided.

The margin against the measure widened with the more detailed question, as 52 percent said they opposed it to 38 percent in support and 10 percent undecided. [Pols emphasis]

Sounds pretty bad for the school finance initiative, doesn’t it? That’s in large part because the Post didn’t tell its readers anything about who made this poll, or what it actually asked in the way of questions. For that rather vital part of the story, we must turn to FOX 31's Eli Stokols:

[T]he results themselves aren’t quite as clear as Coloradans for Real Education Reform, the group that paid for the poll, argue.

First off, the party weighting for this survey is set to 39% Republican, 34% Democrat and 27% unaffiliated — Magellan calls it a “good projection of 2013 turnout demographics”, and it may well be.

Initially, when respondents were asked about Amendment 66 without being told more about what it does, the initiative is losing by a 52-33 percent margin with men.

But, women supported it by a 42-37 percent margin and Hispanics favored it by a 53-34 percent margin…

As Stokols takes the time to explain where the Post didn’t, this poll was more or less engineered to produce the result sought by opponents of Amendment 66. Magellan claims that once voters become “informed” about the initiative, support for Amendment 66 drops across the board–but the “additional information” given in this poll says nothing about what the money would be spent on. Not even that it’s an education initiative at all! Naturally, if your “additional information” consists solely of how much more people will pay, without including anything about what they’re paying for, it’s not going to be received very favorably. Proponents understand that their success depends on what voters will get for their money, where opponents naturally only want to talk about the cost.

Kudos to Eli Stokols for asking the very basic questions that dramatically change the story of this poll. Magellan Strategies, for context, also predicted that Ryan Frazier would defeat Ed Perlmutter in 2010, and Magellan CEO David Flaherty even predicted that year that Tom Tancredo “will become Colorado’s next governor.” Safe to say, their track record is mixed at best.

We’ll leave it to readers to puzzle out why the Denver Post didn’t tell you that.

View the original article here

In Denver Post interview, Coffman affirms opposition to birthright citizenship

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

How fun it would be to sit on a newspaper's editorial board and interview all the candidates who traipse by the office begging for an endorsement.

Over the years, The Denver Post has dabbled with putting those interviews online, where they'd be a valuable public resource, but this isn't done in any systematic fashion, unfortunately.

But, moving its nose slowly in the right direction, The Post's editorial-page staff produces an online video-interview, called the Roundup, which proved its worth this week with an illuminating interview with Rep. Mike Coffman.

Yesterday's program broke news when Coffman affirmed his opposition to the longstanding U.S. law granting citizenship to people born on American soil, even if their parents are not citizens. This is commonly referred to the policy of birthright citizenship. 

Coffman: I mean, the current law is, and the United States is separate from other countries, is that if you are born in the United States, you are, in fact, a citizen of the United States. You know, I think we should probably be, adopt the policies of other countries, that you are a citizen of your parents. But the fact is, that we have children who were born under current U.S. law. And therein lies the challenge that I have, particularly in meeting families up in what is a very new district. And that –

Denver Post Editorial Writer Tim Hoover: You’d see that changed, right? Is that what you’re saying?

Coffman: Sure. I mean, I think we ought to look at that. But , the fact is, what we have to understand, the fact is, we don’t revoke citizenship once it’s given. [BigMedia emphasis]

Watch this portion of the Post's Coffman interview here. And the entire interview here.

During his interview with Hoover, Coffman, who's considered one of the most endangered Congressman in the country, also for the first time offered a vague explanation of how his immigration position is different from the bipartisan bill passed by the Senate. Coffman said:

Coffman @7:30: Where I differ from what the Senate did is, to go beyond that [temporary] legal status, you really do have a trigger. And you really do have to demonstrate that we’ve secured our border. And you really do have to demonstrate that we have mechanisms in place and the will to enforce all of our laws. And that’s a real concern of mine…”

Coffman also said he wants tougher English-language standards and other qualifications for citizenship:

Coffman @10:05: I think we really ought to raise the standards for citizenship across the board. I think citizenship really is sacred. I think between myself and my late father, we have 42 years of military experience and four wars. And I think we understand the value of American citizenship. And so, I think that when we say that somebody ought to know English to become a United States citizen, I think we really ought to mean that they ought to know English and we should raise bar on that. When we say that somebody ought to understand the civic culture of our country, we really mean they ought to understand that to include a firm knowledge of the Constitution of the United States. I think we need to raise the bar on citizenship , period.

And Coffman also offered a new option for Dreamers to attain citizenship, saying he's drafting a bill to allow young people, who entered the U.S. illegally, @8:40, "to achieve citizenship through military service and through higher education." Previously, Coffman only supported allowing so-called Dreamers to achieve citizenship through military service.

Obviously, many questions flow from The Post's interview with Coffman:

Will he be introducing a bill to stop birthright citizenship? What specifically are his proposed triggers for citizenship? What does sufficient immigration enforcement look like? How else does his immigration position differ from what's in the Senate bill? Does Coffman support a path to citizenship for adults? (After speaking with Coffman, The Post's Hoover doesn't think so, because he wrote that Coffman "favors legal residency, but not citizenship, for adult illegal immigrants.") What does Coffman think of the accusation that he's changing his positions on immigration and other issues simply to get re-elected in a more moderate new district?

That's the point of the editorial page, partially, to raise questions. The Roundup did so this week, by putting good questions to Coffman. The Post should offer more long-form interviews on its editorial-page website. In addition to the weekly Roundup show, why not post all issue and endorsement interviews?

View the original article here

Pelosi Coming To Denver (Cue Conspiracy Theory!)

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).

FOX 31's Eli Stokols reports:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi will be in Colorado Wednesday to help raise money for Andrew Romanoff and other Democratic congressional candidates, FOX31 Denver has confirmed.

Pelosi, D-California, will appear at a morning fundraiser for Romanoff, the former statehouse Speaker who is challenging Rep. Mike Coffman, R-Aurora, for his 6th District seat, expected to be one of the closest and most expensive in the country next year.

She’ll also join Rep. Jared Polis, D-Boulder, at a second fundraiser for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

While Democrats are optimistic about their chances to pick up Coffman’s seat, which was re-drawn last year, the prevailing view in Washington at the moment is that the party’s chances of winning back a House majority in 2014 are extremely slim.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi's visit to Denver is another sign that the CD-6 race between vulnerable incumbent Rep. Mike Coffman and Democratic challenger Andrew Romanoff will be a marquee race in 2014.

One person we haven't heard from in relation to Pelosi's visit to Denver is recall spokesperson Jennifer Kerns of Americans for Prosperity. You'll recall last week's nationally publicized claim by Ms. Kerns that ballots "mailed from Chicago" may be headed to the recall elections in Colorado. Her "proof," as you may remember, was the mere presence of an Organizing for America worker at Democratic Party headquarters in Pueblo. "From Chicago!" Kerns earnestly warned to a laugh track and embarrassed side glances from fellow Republicans.

Well, folks, Nancy Pelosi is coming to town! We assume the alert from Kerns will be even more entertaining.

View the original article here

Denver City Council Deciding on Marijuana Measures

As The Denver Post reports:

Denver is all in, but city lawmakers are finding that setting up the nation's first legal marijuana market is not so simple…

…On Monday, the Amendment 64 committee meets for three hours, making decisions about 39 rules and regulations for the new industry, ranging from zoning buffers to hours to fees.

Later in the day, the full council takes up a discussion about whether to put a proposed 5 percent sales tax on pot sales on the November ballot.

While Denver is not alone in dealing with local marijuana regulations, many other municipalities have been taking a wait-and-see approach. Whatever Denver decides could end up being the basis of how sales and distribution regulations are handled throughout the state.

View the original article here