'76 Blog

The first Earth Day in 1970 came to pass with a plethora of statements from the usual alarmist suspects (e.g., Paul Ehrlich, Dennis Hayes, U.S. Sen. Gaylord Nelson, et al) that, in hindsight, should make any sane person laugh out loud. The fact making these a lot less funny is that similarly outrageous statements are being made today by the likes of Al Gore & Co. A sampling of the 1970 stuff appears at the end of this commentary. The fatal fault underlying much said by these disciples of Thomas Malthus is their apparent ignorance of history. Thus, they are oblivious to the wisdom in a metaphor coined, I think, by Sir Isaac Newton, circa 1675, while writing to another giant of science of his day, Robert Hooke: "If I have seen further (than you and Descartes) it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." The Malthusian conceit leading to such as 1972's The Limits to Growth is that human progress cannot continue beyond the present so behavior must now be strictly controlled to avoid the disasters conjured up in the Malthusians' vivid imaginations. One might put it, "We midgets cannot contribute to growth of the giant on whose shoulders we stand (all accumulated human knowledge), so we must retreat." A contemporary example I like to cite is the story of natural gas supply today vis-à-vis 1978, when Congress enacted, and Pres. Carter signed, the National Energy Act. That act comprised the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act and four other acts. The fuel use act commanded a rapid switch to coal, considered necessary mostly on account of imminent depletion of natural gas availability to zero (as well as the need—surprise, surprise—to reduce oil imports!). We now have a glut of natural gas on account of drilling and fracturing techniques undreamt of by the 1978 crowd. This Malthsian scarcity stuff is manna for the socialist one-world government types. "Sustainability" is their code word of choice. A fairly extensive discussion of that appears here on my website. Colorado's flagship public university at Boulder, like hundreds of other institutions of purportedly higher learnng all over the country, is all in to "sustainability." But don't ask for a working definition. I have, and the Chancellor's office either cannot, or is afraid to, provide it. 1970 Earth Day Predictions “We have about five more years at the outside to do something.” • Kenneth Watt, ecologist “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” • George Wald, Harvard Biologist “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” • Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” • Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.” • Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” • Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….” • Life Magazine, January 1970 “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” • Kenneth Watt, Ecologist “Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” • Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’” • Kenneth Watt, Ecologist “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.” • Sen. Gaylord Nelson “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” • Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

  My time in D.C. with the CCU and Centennial Institute Washington Week clan began with not the greatest of surprises – after driving 1,670 miles from Denver my car’s fuel pump failed just twenty miles short of our destination.  Sparing you further details of the dilemma; I had a very interesting discussion with the driver of the tow truck, Kevin.  Kevin made it very clear that he backed Obama for re-election.  After unsuccessfully prying into his reasoning for such a stance, I began to lose hope for the discussion.  Then Kevin introduced the idea of term limits for Congress.  Kevin was highly in favor of a possible limit of service on the Hill for both chambers.  This proposition is not foreign at CCU, Centennial Institute, or conservative dialogue in general, and provided a needed common ground between Kevin and myself on our short ride to the garage.  This conversation would not be the last time that term limits would be raised during this trip.   On Friday, former Colorado Congressman and Senator, Hank Brown led CCU students on a tour of the Capitol.  Senator Brown has extensive knowledge of the Capitol’s art, history, and symbolism.  As a former Senator, Hank Brown provided CCU students a nearly unlimited access tour of both chambers.  One very special place we found ourselves in was the House Appropriations Committee room.  In this room, a portion of the fresco is composed of a painting of the Roman Senator and leader Cincinnatus being called from his plough to defend Rome.  Senator Brown told us the significance of this lies not in the fact the Cincinnatus heard the call of duty and went to save Rome, but that he returned to his farm and denied the dictatorship of Rome after completing his service.  This historical event was repeated in the life and service of George Washington.   Both men loved their country, they left their home to serve and defend but returned when their service was no longer required, turning down dictatorial power.         These two men, Washington more commonly, are cited by those who argue for a Congressional term limit.  We have seen a handful of men go to congress and serve valiantly at their posts as Senators of Congressman then return to their homes and occupations, imploring others to do the same.  But are these self-imposing term limiters to be compared to Cincinnatus and Washington?  To know this we must know the enemy in all three cases.  In Cincinnatus’s time the enemy was the attacking Aequi forces.  During Washington the threat was the British Empire.  But today the greatest fight in front of a conservative congressman or woman is the fight to stop & reverse government growth and defend constitutional government.   And while universally imposed term limits would theoretically aid that pursuit, Conservatives are not raising the memory of Cincinnatus or Washington when they leave the government in the hands of the entrenched spenders while patting themselves on the back for showing restraint.  I applaud the honorable service of these Senators and Representatives, though I feel this is one area where leading by example hurts our cause.  These strong conservative members should fight to the end of the battle; until term limits are instated, then leave their posts with dignity.  

(Centennial Fellow) As Republican majorities take the reins of power both in Congress and in the Colorado House of Representatives, they carry the lofty expectations of their supporters alongside the inconvenient reality that Democrats still control half of the legislative branch plus the executive. Practically speaking, Republicans can do only so much, but that certainly doesn’t mean they are powerless.  Here’s what a good strategy for the next two years might look like: First, kill bad bills.  There’s truth in the maxim, “You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.”  Legislation that empowers bureaucrats or creates new opportunities for litigation simply cannot be “fixed,” so kill it. Taxpayers will breathe a sigh of relief if they know that certain bills are dead on arrival.  This should include tax increases, new mandates that require businesses and families to spend after-tax dollars on things bureaucrats or lobbyists think we supposedly need. Republicans should also see to it that the wish lists of labor unions, trial lawyers and nanny-statists aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. Next, govern effectively.  Republicans will be expected to work with Democrats.  That’s fine, up to a point, but that must be a two-way street. Since neither party can get everything it wants, Republicans should repeatedly establish the principles of fiscally-responsible, taxpayer-friendly, market-oriented, pro-growth governance in every debate.  Get government out of the way and unleash the productivity and creativity of the people.  Let Democrats continue to make the tired argument that politicians and bureaucrats are smarter than the rest of us. At every opportunity, voters should see the contrast between pro-growth, pro-freedom policies and the bankrupt liberal agenda. In Congress, Republicans have a chance to regain their credibility as the party of limited government, balanced budgets, and economic growth.  They dare not squander this opportunity. By requiring every piece of legislation to explain how it falls within Congress’s constitutional authority, Republicans have already instituted a rule that, if adhered to, could cause a seismic shift in the political culture.  Remember when Nancy Pelosi, asked where the Constitution gives Congress authority to implement ObamaCare, responded incredulously, “Are you serious?” Yes, Nancy, we are serious. Spending bills must originate in the U.S. House, so Republicans can restore sanity to runaway spending which soared from $24,000 per household prior to the recession to $36,000 under the Obama budgets.  Congress should require that unspent “stimulus” funds be returned and committed to deficit reduction. Finally, Congress can use its oversight authority to expose arrogant bureaucrats who would choke off access to domestic oil and gas supplies, impose costly regulations on energy production, and tax or regulate the internet. At the State Capitol, all bills to raise revenue must originate in the House, according to the state constitution.  Nothing that emits even a whiff of tax increase should leave the State Capitol without the constitutionally-required vote of the people.  And after more than $1 billion in surreptitious in tax and fee increases over the past four years, voters are in no mood. Republican legislators should lay down a few markers:  no more “fees” that simply raise money for general government purposes, no more mandates that require consumers to buy insurance coverage they don’t want or cannot afford, and no more regulations that increase the cost of energy to consumers. Above all else, elected Republicans must remember:  “Don’t go native.” Last November, many people with different ideas and priorities voted Republican because they were sick of Democrats spending money they didn’t have, growing government into a ubiquitous burden, piling debt on our children and grandchildren, and raising taxes with impunity.  The halls of government are full of lobbyists and bureaucrats who advocate for more government spending, more regulation and more limits on personal freedom. Republicans’ mission is to put taxpayers back in charge by making government serve the people – reversing the liberal inclination to make people serve government. Mark Hillman served as Colorado senate majority leader and state treasurer.  He is now Colorado's Republican national committeeman, and a Centennial Institute Fellow.  To read more or comment, go to www.MarkHillman.com.

I will admit that I've been trying not to talk too much about a Republican landslide tomorrow -- the kind that sweeps out the career Democrat pols in Congress and replaces them with those who are not stained by the insidious corruption of the Beltway.  Not that Republicans are perfect -- or haven't gotten tainted by the same dirty water.  They have.  But the class of new Republicans in this election is different, and offers more in the way of principle than pure pork-barrel politics.  Lord knows how long they will be able to hang on to their principles once they get exposed to the lobbyists, unions and other bearers of kryptonite that skulk the halls of Congress.  But at least we know that we start from a base which overwhelmingly believes in small government, smaller deficits and the power of individual liberty.  That's huge in my book. In any event, I'm not going to make but a few general predictions here.  But I will link here to an interesting analysis so you can draw more of your own conclusions: Jay Cost, writing at The Weekly Standard, predicts a huge landslide.   His rationale is similar to the post I did earlier on the bias of polls.  He argues that if you look at the Democrat oversampling of polls since the 1994 election and look at the actual result, only Gallup has gotten close to being accurate.  And very accurate, indeed -- within a point.  Thus, Cost sees Gallup as the true poll for this election.  Though Gallup doesn't poll individual races, their general Final Likely Voter Projection provides some clear evidence of the extent of Republican gains tomorrow night.  Their generic voter preference for a 45% turnout of national adults is 55% for the Republican candidate and only 40 percent for the Democratic candidate.   According to Cost, this is HUGE: A victory of 15 points suggests Republican gains well in excess of my previous estimate of 61 seats. The Abramowitz model suggests a pickup of about 76 seats, but I wouldn’t take that at face value. After all, there is a great deal of uncertainty because we are dealing with unprecedented results, which Gallup is quick to acknowledge. A Republican vote margin of 15 points would more than double the party’s 1994 victory and it is about double its 1946 victory. In fact, you have to go all the way back to 1928 to find an election where the popular vote margin resembled anything close to what Gallup is predicting. So, if Gallup is correct you can expect a big Republican tidal wave tomorrow.  In excess of 60 seats and possibly as many as 90.  Tsunami-like. We'll see how it goes -- we can only hope that in this wave some of the corrupt barrons -- Barney Frank, for example -- get swept under.  But even not, you can take solace that Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Barney Frank will take their chair gavels and go back to their seats in the minority.  And not a moment too soon! In the Senate I think the Republicans come up short of a majority, but again, if Gallup is correct it could happen.  I predict they win at least eight seats currently held by Democrats -- and if they are able to take Washington with Dino Rossi and California (which I have already predicted they will) then 10 seats will be in reach.  It will be harder if Demorcat Joe Manchin wins in West Virginia and the "Bearded Marxist" Chris Coons beats O'Donnell in Delaware.  But even at a 51-49 Democrat edge in the Senate, the Republicans will have a chance to ensure gridlock over the next two years.  And in many cases, they will pick up Independent Joe Lieberman and Democrat Ben Nelson and be able get some legislation passed.  If Obama vetoes it, fine: at least it's on the record. For an interesting voter guide tomorrow you can use to track key races across the country check out David Freddoso at the Washington Times here. And get out and VOTE!  It's critical -- this is THE most important mid-term election in a generation and it is so important to get this socialist train off the tracks!

(CCU Student) With eight days to go until Election 2010, there are many expert predictions that assert the GOP will pick up anywhere from forty to sixty seats in the House and five to ten seats in the Senate. While this indeed would be a definitive feat, there is an astonishing facet that has been under wraps in this election cycle. Republicans are running competitively in Solid Democrat seats, some of which have been held by Democrats for the past ten to twenty years. In most election cycles, winning in districts such as MA-4, TN-6, and OH-10 would be deemed unfathomable; just the mere thought of a Republican staying within 20% points would be a tall order in itself. But the political mantra of the GOP this midterm election has been ‘to attain the impossible’, and this attitude, shown by countless Republican candidates throughout the country who are looking to make history, has reflected positively in the polls leading up to this 2010 election battle. So, is it the Democrat’s mishaps or a ‘Republican Wave’ that is bringing these out-of-reach seats into play? Well, I personally believe that it is an incorporation of both facets. When Representative Barney Frank (MA-4) states that: “The private sector got us into this mess. The government has to get us out of it," Independents, Republicans, and Democrats alike in MA-4 have warrant to become apprehensive about the ideals sustained by their elected representative. Regardless of partisanship, I do not believe that these views reflected by Rep. Frank embody the ideology or values that mainstream Americans hold to. In (OH-10), Representative Dennis Kucinich (D) is in deep trouble against Republican Peter Corrigan through an unlikely series of events. But referring back to this idea of Democratic mishaps, maybe the event of this neck-and-neck polling stems from the reality that Rep. Kucinich has failed to pass a single piece of effective legislation in the past two years and instead has served as a rubber-stamp to President Obama’s extreme agenda entailing $2.5 trillion dollars of increased government spending. In addition, he has frolicked around in Washington, DC, introducing futile legislative proposals such as the establishment of a ‘Department of Peace’. Somehow, I have a hard time believing that these efforts resonate affirmatively in the minds of voters in an era in which we have seen the largest increase in the size of federal government. The ‘Republican Wave’ has also served a large role in spearheading Republicans into these traditionally blue House and Senate seats. Voter angst has reached its culmination, and the general public is upset with their representatives’ reckless spending in Washington. According to a poll taken by Politico, only 28% of respondents felt that their representative should be re-elected in November 2010. And with Congress’ approval rating south of 20%, there should be a high liability for both party’s incumbents to severely spiral. However, as stated by Lydia Saad of Gallup Polling: “Simply put, the party in power seems to take the brunt of voters' wrath in these situations.” This was displayed in the 2006 midterm election, in which Democrats wiped out Republicans in a landslide effort. Running on the platform of government spending and the war, Democrats lambasted GOP leadership within a climate similar to that benefitting Republicans this time around. But what exactly is the difference between 2006 and 2010? The answers are nearly limitless. From grassroots campaigns to talk radio, this election has been based on opportunity. Whether it is the opportunity to get involved at the local level, or campaign on the national stage, grassroots conservatives have come alive and active in contrast to the barren efforts of the GOP in the 2008 election. In the past year, whether it is at auto-repair, the local barbershop, or a bakery down the street, the radio is tuned in to political talk show hosts discussing pressing issues such as the debt, national security, immigration, and the economy. People in all walks of life are desperate for their voice to be heard in virtually any venue of public broadcast, even if they reside in a heavily Democratic district. When we look back on November 2, we will not thank one politician or one campaign contribution or Democratic gaffe for Republican candidates stealing seemingly unobtainable seats in the House and Senate. Talk radio, online podcasts/webcasts, Tea Party assemblies, and other ground-up grassroots organizations will claim responsibility for Democrats and Independents alike crossing party lines to stand up for what is right for our country; stifling the ‘change’ that has delivered obscene spending, expansive government control, and the hastened downturn of the economy. Is this to say that Kucinich, Frank, and other “Safe” Democrats will be unemployed on November 3? Unfortunately, the answer will likely be a ‘no’. However, there is an undeniable fascination by the general public with the idea of retiring each and every incumbent in November. So why is it, then, that political analysts are stating that there are nearly 100 house seats in play for Republicans, when only 39 pick-ups are needed for House Majority? The answer comes from college students such as myself, and teachers, and small-business owners, and everyday citizens who are astonished by the overreaching of the federal government in its power, spending, and infringement of individual liberties. Blend in the optimistic spirit of grassroots conservatives and a fired up GOP base, and we will be looking at the greatest swing of Congressional power in the House and Senate since 1994. After two long years, we are excitingly close to giving those who are committed to the concepts of the founding and who are conscious of the will of the people ‘back the keys’ to our country.  With all efforts forward, Americans should use these last nine days to take a chance in supporting a GOP hopeful that has their Democratic opponent on their heels, in fear for their political survival.  In these final days before the election, Americans should give thoughtful consideration to the GOP candidates within their districts; this is one year in which even the biggest of underdogs have a shot at triumph.

To anyone who still believes the National Rifle Association cares more about protecting your Second Amendment rights than it does about kissing up to powerful politicians, it's time to wake up and smell the coffee. For the NRA, the Second Amendment has become little more than an expedient tool for raising money, striking political compromises, and maintaining access to those in power.   This week, the NRA's Political Victory Fund endorsed liberal Democrat Congresswoman Betsy Markey, who cares so deeply about the Second Amendment that she didn't even bother to return the NRA's survey when she first ran for Congress two years ago. So why did the NRA cast its lot with Markey now? It's simple: the NRA likes to play it safe by backing incumbents, even those whose support of gun rights is as sturdy as a soggy role of toilet paper.  When the NRA endorsed liberal Democrat Sen. Harry Reid, NRA lobbyist Chris Cox explained that its "long-standing policy … gives preference to incumbent candidates who have voted with the NRA on key issues." Let's establish the gun rights credentials of the two candidates in this race. Republican challenger Cory Gardner has repeatedly taken the lead on pro-gun rights legislation such as the "Make My Day Better" bill that would give business owners and employees the same right to defend themselves and their business property as they have to defend their home. Based on Gardner's voting record during five years in the Colorado legislature, even the NRA gave him an A+ grade. On the other hand, Markey has done nothing courageous or noteworthy.  The NRA's flim-flam press release touts her co-sponsorship — that's Beltway speak for "honorary cheerleader" — of a bill that she knows will never come to a vote in a Democrat-controlled Congress. On the Second Amendment, Markey is no profile in courage.  Her two actual "pro-gun" votes were meaningless throwaways, cast to gain political cover (which the NRA is now slavishly providing) after the outcome of the vote was no longer in doubt. Remember Sens. Michael Bennet and Mark Udall voting to allow guns in national parks but only after obtaining permission from the Senate's top gun-grabber, Sen. Charles Schumer?  Markey's votes were of the same lot — manipulative campaign fodder. Now, the NRA wants us to believe that if push comes to shove, Betsy Markey will "demonstrate her commitment to our Second Amendment rights" and betray Nancy Pelosi and the cadre of local liberal activists to whom she owes her election. If you believe that, you're a hopeless sheep. Markey and the NRA were also allies on the DISCLOSE Act, which attacked the First Amendment rights of most Americans but conveniently carved exemptions for the NRA and labor unions. Conservative columnist George F. Will explained, the NRA "told Democrats that it would not oppose DISCLOSE if the legislation exempts entities with a cynically constructed set of attributes that only the NRA has."  Will described the NRA's refusal to fight DISCLOSE as "intellectual ludicrousness and moral disarmament," tantamount to arguing that the Second Amendment is sacred but the First Amendment is negotiable. During my two terms in the Colorado Senate, the NRA regularly watered down gun rights legislation to garner unneeded Democrat votes rather to push for the best pro-gun legislation that could pass.  At that time, Republicans held the majority and even a handful of Democrat legislators were solid on gun issues — without the NRA's pabulum. I understand that the NRA looks solely at gun issues and nothing else.  But for gun owners who think for themselves, this race is a slam dunk.  Cory Gardner has demonstrated his rock-solid credentials by fighting for gun owners and against the liberal majority at the State Capitol.  Betsy Markey has said "me, too!" when it doesn't matter. When I cast my vote for Congress, it will be for the candidate I know I can count on.  When I donate to groups that support my Second Amendment rights, it won't be to the NRA. Mark Hillman served as Senate Majority Leader and State Treasurer.  To read more or comment, go to www.MarkHillman.com.

(Denver Post, Sept. 19) “It is essential to liberty,” wrote Madison in Federalist No. 52, “that the government should have a common interest with the people; an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with the people.”  And what did he say is the only way to secure that?  “Frequent elections, unquestionably.” We saw a perfect example of Madison’s point, and a beautiful thing it was, the other day when Sen. Michael Bennet and Reps. Betsy Markey and John Salazar, Democrats all, dived off the Obama bandwagon on his ill-conceived $50 billion Son of Stimulus plan to limit damage in the upcoming midterms.  The president’s erstwhile congressional allies Colorado obviously see the plan as a source of damage. Even before the voters speak through their ballots in November, they’ve begun to murmur through townhalls and polls in September – and Markey, Salazar, and Bennet, big stimulus fans last year, are now all ears.  “Immediate dependence on the people” strikes again.  The system works (sort of). We’d really know the system was working if Democratic Reps. Ed Perlmutter, Jared Polis, and Diana DeGette also expressed  sudden distaste for the dangerous deficit and the obscenity of uncontrolled spending.  It won’t happen with Polis and DeGette because they’re comfy in safe districts, cruising (they believe) toward another term.  It still might happen with Perlmutter, who is polling dead even with GOP challenger Ryan Frazier; but as yet the suburbanite must feel less threatened by the Republican tide than his rural colleagues Markey out east and Salazar out west. I’m acquainted with some libertarians and curmudgeons (often the same thing) who growl, “Don’t vote, it only encourages the SOB’s.”  The present case refutes that attitude.  Were it not for Cory Gardner running to oust Betsy Markey, Scott Tipton surging in his rematch with John Salazar, and Ken Buck putting the fear in Michael Bennet, with millions of voters at the ready, the Dems could continue supporting Obama’s leftist agenda to their hearts’ content. Seems to me that more voting, not less, is what the doctor ordered for America right now.  From Brown in Massachusetts to O’Donnell in Delaware, each week’s by-elections and primaries in 2010 have brought proof that we the people are wide awake, marshalling our votes to either make senators and representatives listen or replace them with unknown upstarts who will. Thus the “emergency situation” for Diana DeGette this fall might turn out to be not a judge’s ban on tax dollars for destroying human embryos, about which she was fulminating on Tuesday, but an ER doctor’s candidacy to ban her and help repeal Obamacare.  Is Republican Mike Fallon a longshot in Democratic Denver?  Yes.  Is DeGette a lock?  No – not in this year of the Tea Party and Beck’s half-million on the Mall. Election night won’t just see a massive wipeout of vulnerable House Democrats, predicts Karl Rove.  It will also bring the upset of several congressmen whom no one thought vulnerable at all.  Even Boulder’s Jared Polis, the epitome of urban cool and made of money, may not be out of reach for veteran, businessman, and family man Stephen Bailey, the GOP nominee in CD-2.  Our won’t-listen Congress has stirred an anything’s-possible backlash. The CD-7 seat that Perlmutter holds was expressly drawn for him by a friendly judge when Ed and I were state senators in 2002.  How ironic if Frazier were to sweep him out of it now, just when demographics were supposed to be making the district loss-proof. Which reminds me, Colorado has a won’t-listen Democratic legislature that may likewise go Republican in one or both houses on Nov. 2.  My party is bent on that, with Hickenlooper leading for governor and redistricting coming up.  As Madison also knew, maps matter mightily.

With the primaries over and nominations set in both parties, now it can be told.  Political consultant and Fox News contributor Dick Morris arranged a sidebar meeting after the Western Conservative Summit with some of the GOP candidates for Colorado's 3rd, 4th, and 7th congressional districts -- all currently in Democratic hands but potentially in play as the anti-incumbent tide rises.  Cory Gardner was then already the nominee in CD4; contenders Ryan Frazier and Scott Tipton have since won their respective races.  Let me note for the record that Centennial Institute does not support or oppose any political party, candidate, or ballot issue, and we did not host or attend the private interviews described in Morris's July 20 column, excerpted below.  We do applaud Dick, however, for making good use of his quick eight-hour visit to the state on Sunday, July 11, as our summit wrapped up.  BY DICK MORRIS 7/20/10   I have spent the last ten days out on the campaign trail in Colorado, Virginia, and Arkansas.  Under the aegis of Americans for Prosperity, a conservative voter education group, I have been preaching the gospel that we cannot tolerate big spending liberals in Congress and that we need to elect conservatives who will oppose higher taxes.    The crowds and the enthusiasm have been simply amazing.  One thousand in Denver.  Four thousand in Arkansas.  Fifteen hundred in Virginia.  I have frequently worked in these states, but never have seen anything close to this level of commitment, interest and enthusiasm.    But it is worthwhile to review the individual races in these states.  They are crucial and, combined, could give the Republicans seven of the thirty-nine seats they need to take power in the House.    In Colorado, Republican Cory Gardner, http://www.corygardner.com, has an excellent chance of defeating Democratic incumbent Betsy Markey.  Democrat John Salazar, the Interior Secretary's brother, faces the loss of his Congressional seat in the western part of the state to Republican Scott Tipton, http://votetipton.com/fix-america, a businessman who has built a huge and successful business selling Native American crafts and art throughout the world.  Tipton employs hundreds of Native Americans and, at the same time, helps keep their culture alive and make it marketable.  In the Denver area, a young, articulate, charismatic, brilliant, black Republican Ryan Frazier, http://www.frazierforcolorado.com, faces Democratic Congressman Ed Pearlmutter.  He has a good chance of winning and deserves our support.  This guy could be our answer to Barack Obama!

(Centennial Fellow) The current controversy around Obamacare echoes the debate over ratification of the Constitution in 1787-88. Contention then centered on how the government would obtain and maintain the sufficient support of the people, while at the same time protecting the people’s liberties.  Both the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists agreed that this indeed was the proper role of government.  Their disagreement lay in how best to constitute a government to achieve these desired ends.  For government to be legitimate, it must maintain a voluntary attachment and obedience to the laws. For the Federalists, a new theory of government – the “extended compound republic” – was believed to be the solution to these challenges.  By introducing a diversity of opinions from a large geographical expanse (made possible by representative government), the Federalists believed that laws passed by elected officials would only be passed with the widespread support of a clear majority of the people.  At the same time, laws harmful to the rights of the people would be very difficult to pass through the layers of checks and balances established in the compound republic.  Finally, the Federalists argued that a system of “dual sovereignties” was created by the Constitution of 1787, with distinct powers held by the states and other distinct powers given to the national government.  This division of power provided the necessary balance and security for the individual citizen’s liberties. The Anti-Federalists were highly skeptical that this new science of government crafted by Madison and his fellow convention delegates would satisfy either of these significant concerns.  Simply having elected officials who were to represent the interests of the people in the national government was seen as no security at all to the opponents of ratification.  In fact, Robert Yates, a New York judge writing under the pseudonym Brutus, argued that the people “will have no confidence in their legislature, suspect them of ambitious views, be jealous of every measure they adopt, and will not support the laws they pass.”  Brutus suggests that rather than having the voluntary attachment to the laws – because they reflect a majority will of the people – the people will instead be highly skeptical of them. When the people are skeptical of their laws, they will have neither a voluntary attachment nor a voluntary obedience to them, which leads to the second great concern of the Anti-Federalists: when the people don’t voluntarily support the nation’s laws, they will necessarily be coerced or forced to obey them.  Richard Henry Lee, a leading founder, noted that when public opinion is not behind our laws, “force then becomes necessary to secure the purposes of civil government.”  Finally, the Anti-Federalists did not accept the argument that “dual sovereignties” could be long maintained.  Inevitably, they would tend in one direction or the other, and the Anti-Federalists were certain that this tendency would ultimately move away from the states in favor of the national government. The historic debate on protecting liberty and ensuring popular legislation was not resolved in 1787 -- indeed it holds great relevance for us today.  Health care reform is a present-day example reflecting the very real concerns of both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists of whether laws would be passed with widespread support – ensuring voluntary attachment and obedience to them –  and whether or not our liberty is secure.  The most recent Rasmussen survey finds that 54% of respondents now favor repeal of the Health Care Reform.  In the analysis of the poll they find that: ** Fifty-nine percent (59%) of voters think the plan will increase the deficit despite assurances from the plan’s supporters that just the opposite is the case. ** Twenty-two percent (22%) say the quality of health care in America will get better under the new plan, but 52% think it will get worse. ** Fifty-six percent (56%) believe the plan will cause the cost of health care to go up. It is quite clear that this law fails the test of widespread support.  And when individual citizens are forced to purchase health insurance at the risk of being fined, there is indeed a new threat on our liberty.  Brutus and Lee’s worst fears appear to have been proven true: law in this instance does not reflect the will of the people and force will be necessary in order to secure obedience.

Aurora City Councilman Ryan Frazier, one of several contenders for the Republican nomination in Colorado's 7th congressional district, pledged Tuesday night at CCU that if elected, "I will fight to repeal this health care monstrosity and replace it with free-market reforms."  Frazier spoke on health care, the deficit, and other issues to a packed audience of students and campus neighbors, about 50 in all. The event was sponsored by the Colorado Republicans chapter at Colorado Christian University. CD-7 takes in much of Jefferson County, including Lakewood where the university is located, as well as parts of other counties in Denver's north and west suburbs.  An invitation to speak at CCU as a guest of the Centennial Institute is pending with Congressman Ed Perlmutter, the Democratic incumbent.  Others seeking the GOP nomination in CD-7, including Mike Sheely and Jimmy Lakey (who has since dropped out) have attended Centennial  forums in the past. CCU student David Keimig, well-experienced with the health care system, listens to candidate Ryan Frazier's policy discussion Tuesday evening.