Longmont Advocate Podcast

Culture Of Corruption: Brandon Shaffer

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 04:26:00 GMT

Like I asked at the recent City Council meeting: Are there secret meetings held to discuss holding secret meetings, or does it just come natural for certain types of people? I was eluding to State Senator Brandon Shaffer (Democrat-Longmont) and getting caught inviting only his own party buddies to a retreat, and Longmont City Councilmember Karen Benker and the 1996 Rocky Mountain News editorial about her secret RTD meetings (more on that in another piece), and of course the Open Records debacle relating to city emails.

But first, Brandon Shaffer. I've called this guy a party hack for quite some time now, and the proof is in this current pudding. I know, a lot of you bought the bait and switch of him standing in front of a flag and pictures of him in uniform - but all doubt should be erased as to how this guy ticks. This from the Denver Post's Lynn Bartels: (emphasis and comments added)

Colorado senate president: Exclusive Dem retreat a "mistake"
The $4,300 event should have included the GOP, Shaffer says.

State Senate President Brandon Shaffer said he erred when he excluded Republicans from a two-day, taxpayer-paid retreat on conflict resolution and team building. The event last week cost more than $4,300.

"In retrospect, I made a mistake," said Shaffer, D-Longmont. "I should have invited Republicans as well." -remember that comment for later

Senate Republicans said because they were excluded, the event should have been paid for out of private Democratic caucus funds, not taxpayer money.

Shaffer said he hired a facilitator in part because of criticism this year about committee chairs who were thought to be disrespectful to the public or to fellow lawmakers. Because Democrats are in the majority, they are in charge of the committees. -and are thought to be disrespectful, just thought that was worth repeating.

"I thought it was a good idea to do some training around culture and leadership and the way we interact with each other down here," Shaffer said. "I think a minimal investment in professional development is justified."

But Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry, R-Grand Junction, was critical. "If I've said it once I've said it 1,000 times: The Democrats in Colorado's statehouse are acting an awful lot like the Republicans in Congress right before they lost everything," Penry said. "Unemployment is the highest in nearly a generation, state workers are being furloughed, and we're writing checks for team-building seminars? Wow." -stunning, and obvious

The Senate paid $4,200 for the workshop led by facilitator Paul Bernabei of Top 20 Training, which bills itself as an organization that empowers people to "make a positive difference in the quality of their lives, relationships and experiences." The Senate also paid for his $179.20 plane ticket.

The Senate secretary, Karen Goldman, said she raised the issue about including the minority staff. -get that? The issue was raised.

"When I was asked about the Senate paying for it, I said we could do that but I would feel more comfortable if all staff were invited," she said.Shaffer said it was his decision to keep Republicans out. -partisan hack only represents some of you, not all.

"I thought it would be beneficial if we were in an environment where we were going to air dirty laundry to keep that in-house," he said. -like what dirty laundry? Illegal activities?

Bernabei met at the Capitol with Goldman and her staff and Senate Democratic caucus staffers Wednesday and with Senate Democratic lawmakers Thursday. Shaffer said the workshop was so effective and so constructive, " I wish the Republicans had been there, frankly."
----------------------------------------------------------
That last statement by Mr. Shaffer takes the cake for stupidity. He's in charge, he makes the call, if he wished the Republicans had been there, he could have made it happen. He intentionally locked them out of this.

But there's more: From the Associated Press: (emphasis and comments added)

Shaffer defends staffer's bonus
Predecessor also rewarded workers
By Steven K. Paulson / The Associated Press

DENVER - Former Colorado state Senate President Peter Groff paid his staff $30,000 in bonuses before he left office, according to records obtained by The Associated Press, despite a statewide hiring freeze and a budget crisis that could mean furloughs for thousands of other workers. -nice

His successor as Senate president, Brandon Shaffer, D-Longmont, said he awarded a $5,000 bonus to one of his staffers.Both defended the bonuses, saying their staffers were paid low wages and worked long hours. Records obtained by the AP on Monday through the state open-records law show Groff gave eight employees bonuses ranging from $5,500 to his chief of staff, who made $81,900 a year, to $1,500 to a secretary who was paid $54,248 a year.

"I thought the staff deserved it," Groff said from his new post in Washington, where he is director of faith-based community initiatives for the Education Department. "They did a great job getting us through a tough, difficult session." -too bad if the rest of the public isn't doing so hot.
Groff was named director to the new position in May.

Shaffer said he paid a bonus to his assistant, who he said made only $8,000 over the past six months and got no state benefits. -says something about his employer (Shaffer), probably has him cut his grass and watch his kids, too.

Shaffer acknowledged it's a "sensitive subject" but said he authorized the bonus because the assistant did a good job. -sensitive? But you had no problem doing it though.

Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry, R-Grand Junction, paid no bonuses this year and returned $10,000 from his office budget to the state Treasury. "There are a lot of great workers who are not getting bonuses this year," Penry said. "These aren't huge sums of money, but symbolism matters. Government should be sacrificing like everyone else." House Minority Leader Mike May, R-Parker, said he didn't pay bonuses this year. He says the bonuses that were paid send the wrong message to state workers who face furloughs or losing their jobs. "They just don't get it. It's amazing. They're so insulated by government, it's incredible," said May.

House Speaker Terrance Carroll, D-Denver, also did not award any bonuses this year, according to House financial records. -refreshing surprise

Julie Postlethwait, spokeswoman for the state Department of Personnel and Administration, said Gov. Bill Ritter left the decision on whether to award bonuses to individual department heads this year. She said her office won't know if any were awarded until the end of July after the bonuses have been paid. State workers could be furloughed for at least four days in the upcoming months to help balance the state budget. -but Shaffer's paying bonuses

Lawmakers have told state agencies to cut costs by an additional $16 million by cutting salaries or furloughing workers. They left it up to Ritter and his department heads to work out the details. -but Shaffer's paying bonuses

Ritter's chief of staff, Jim Carpenter, said Ritter is trying to discourage executive directors from giving bonuses this year, but he can't guarantee they haven't been handed. -but Shaffer's paying bonuses!

State records show that in the 2007-08 fiscal year, which ended last June, Senate Republicans gave out $37,000 in bonuses and Democrats $26,250. Totals for the current fiscal year won't be available until sometime after June 30. Carpenter also sent an e-mail to thousands of state workers describing the plan so far. He said four days of furloughs are possible in the budget year that begins July 1. -but Shaffer's paying bonuses!

However, he said more could be ordered to help balance the existing budget or in case more budget cuts are needed because of a further drop in tax revenue.
---------------------------------------------------------------
And to wrap it all up with a bow on it, once caught, Brandon Shaffer said he'd pay back the money for the retreat. Once again, Denver Post's Lynn Bartels: (emphasis and comments added, edited out repeats from earlier story)

Colorado Senate to repay funds
Workshop that excluded Republicans won't go on the taxpayers' tab

Following a rash of criticism, state Senate President Brandon Shaffer has decided to use private Democratic funds rather than ask taxpayers to foot the bill for a $4,200 workshop from which Republicans were excluded.

"The perception was that it was an unwise use of funds," John Cevette, Senate chief of staff, said Wednesday. -ya think?

Republicans were peeved at the use of taxpayer money because they weren't invited, and even left-leaning blogs were critical. Shaffer said he erred in excluding them, and that the cost will be paid for out of " personal donations." -attention, did you see that?

"I think that was a smart move on their part," said Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry, R-Grand Junction.

Cevette said the Minnesota-based facilitator did an excellent job, and staffers and lawmakers learned a lot, but it was overshadowed by two back-to-back controversies. The brouhaha over the workshop came at the same time it was disclosed that former Senate President Peter Groff paid nearly $30,000 in bonuses to Senate staffers despite a budget crisis and furloughs for state workers. Senate Republicans gave no bonuses this year, although last year, they gave $37,000 in bonuses while Democrats gave $26,250. The House Democrats and Republicans haven't given bonuses for several years.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't this sound familiar? It should if you read this site or pay attention to local Longmont Democratic state representatives. Back in April, John "Jack" Pommer (Democrat-Boulder/Longmont) got caught not paying deliquent fines (all the details are here). Like Mr. Shaffer, he didn't do a thing until he was caught, probably never had any plans to pay those fines. Unless the Denver Post put the heat on Mr. Shaffer, I have no doubt he had no plans on paying back this retreat fee.

But here's the other similarity: Those deliquent fines Mr. Pommer paid, like Mr. Shaffer he used " personal donations". That's right, you people foolish enough to contribute to either of these candidates just helped pay for late filing fines and this retreat junket! Odds are if you bought their line, you'll continue to and deserve to lose your hard earned money. But maybe, maybe, you'll learn something and remember about our two local ethically challenged representatives before voting for them for anything ever again, but I'm not counting on it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Â2009 Chris Rodriguez/Longmont Advocate LLC (Chris Rodriguez is a Longmontresident, and the publisher and broadcaster of Longmont Advocate, a community website and podcast that raises local issues to increase public awareness and interest)

Denver Aviation Examiner signing off

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 03:25:00 GMT

I want to thank Examiner.Com, and especially Nate Ferguson, for the opportunity to be the Denver Aviation Examiner for the last 6 months. I've recently resigned due to time constraints, but it's been a fun ride. I averaged over 5,000 hits a month and went out #4 in my category (Neighborhoods & Culture) nationwide for the year.

But my involvement with them isn't completely over as I'll still help the Longmont Examiner (my wife) on local issues - which is where I'll be focusing the majority of my attention. The opportunity to come back to Examiner is always there (I was the former Longmont Examiner) and their site has a great future in front of them. It's growing by leaps and bounds and is moving up the Internet charts.

All of my old articles will still be accessible and the links will remain on my websites. The question has been asked (several times for the last 6 months) if my podcast is coming back. It was nearly impossible to do it and the Examiner position at the same time, but anything's possible. The downloads of the podcast have continued even after my last recording back in December, and the hits and video views on my YouTube channel and especially here at the blog have been steady and increasing (June 16th and 17th were two of the biggest days ever with the radio interview).

While I still believe the written word is king, some occasional audio and video is a possibility. I've also been invited to join a bigger Northern Colorado project (...more on that later), so time is always an issue.

...now, on to all the fun in Longmont, there's plenty to cover.

Longmont Advocate on The Amy Oliver Show

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 05:52:00 GMT

A big thank you goes out to Amy Oliver for inviting me on to her show for a live interview. Amy can be found weekdays from 9am-11am on KFKA 1310AM in the Northern Colorado area.

Does this signal a return of the podcast? Hard to say. I might be going more for YouTube videos, as I like the effectiveness of the "pop-up video" possibilities there. If I resume some recording, I'll probably do it in small snippets (YouTube allows 10 minutes) on a loosely scheduled basis. The YouTube videos would probably be the audio with some kind of slideshow in the background.

Of course, the City Council YouTube videos will be clips from council meetings with my smartmouth commentary in pop-ups.

Chris

Longmont City Council being dishonest about emails

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:42:00 GMT

On Sunday June 14, 2009 the Longmont Times-Call did a fairly large piece on emails and Open Records. It sounded sort of familiar as I've written about it over the last year, did my own Open Records request for these emails, and my wife has discussed this with council members.

Something I want you to keep in mind when you read these stories and the editorial that came out the same day: when you hear a councilmember, Karen Benker in particular because she asked point blank about this issue, don't assume for a second " they didn't know". They knew alright.

April 30, 2008 on this site and YourHub, I wrote a story called " Can of Worms". Do I assume they all read my stuff? Of course not. The point is what they asked during a City Council meeting of their then City Attorney Clay Douglas. Here are some relevent parts:
--------------
At the April 29, 2008 Longmont City Council meeting, at the late, nearly eleven o'clock hour, something interesting happened. Quite often, the most interesting things happen during "Council Comments" at the end of every meeting, it's worth Tivo'ing.

Councilmember Karen Benker asked City Attorney Clay Douglas about (the LifeBridge Open Records request) and it turned into a fairly long discussion covering emails, phone calls, and the recording and reporting of these. Some of you may not have been aware, but every correspondence you send to city council, and presumably city staff, is of the open record variety. And, when councilmembers receive these, they are to forward them on to city staff for retention.

I got the strong impression this hasn't been followed by some on council. And there seemed to be concern about "personal" emails, and when items are confidential and when they aren't. It sounds like very little is private when it comes to just about any correspondence between constituents and their city council members.

Apparently, the proper way for a councilmember to respond to an email is for them to CC the reply to the appropriate city staff email address so they get a copy of the original email and the response. And it was also implied that if the councilmember replies and forwards the reply on, it must include the original email from the constituent or the Open Records Act was not properly followed.
-------------------------
There's more, relating to Open Meetings laws and how this "new" council was advised of all of this. No excuses. These councilmembers were well aware of all the laws and procedures, but will they be held accountable? What do you think?

This was an interesting quote in the TC story: "City Council members who are not making all their e-mails available to the public are violating the Colorado Open Records Act, said Steve Zansberg, a Denver-based media attorney."

Karen Benker basically admitted to violating this in one of the stories ( 'Lot of room for error' built in). Even if it " wasn't made clear to her when she was appointed to the council in 2005", this is a lifetime bureaucrat, are you really buying that? And again, she asked the City Attorney during an open council meeting about this April of 2008, over a year ago! So not only has she violated this statute, she's lying about her knowledge and legal advice on this issue.

I did an Open Records request of council emails a few months ago. I was shocked at gaping holes in time of absolutely no emails, entire months wiped clean. I know for a fact I sent some emails to councilmembers before, during, and after that time period. Most were not forwarded. And as you saw, Councilmember Brian Hansen was the worst offender in this program and Times-Call attack dog Sean McCoy wouldn't even respond for their story. A pretty important issue, don't you think?

Well, not if you're the local village idiots who think Benker, McCoy, Hansen, and Levison can do no wrong. Yes, that's right, they are defending blatant intentional flaunting and violating of state law. Why not? They have the majority, right? The new City Attorney probably isn't aware of what the previous one said about this (and that list grows by the month), so don't expect much there.

So which is it, are they just babes in the woods playing it by ear? Or outright lawlessness?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Longmont foreclosures show no sign of slowing

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 20:30:00 GMT

It was a " good news/bad news" kind of week for foreclosures in Longmont. The good news, if you want to call it that, was that there were fewer total foreclosures in the paper - but that's probably only because the 6 that dropped off ran their 8-week publishing requirement in the paper, they're probably still in foreclosure. The other good news, for councilmembers who are mostly staying quiet on this subject, is that some of the new ones had Longmont addresses but weren't in the city limits. So, they can't vote for/against who runs/sits on council.

Many of the other new foreclosures were in Lafayette, Erie, and especially Boulder.

The bad news is that Longmont is still keeping pace of over 1 new foreclosure a day. This week there were 9 new foreclosures.

Again, these all come from the Saturday Classified section of the Longmont Times-Call in the Legal section. This is the section that some noise has been made lately by Councilmembers McCoy and Benker over the issue of the Times-Call printing ordinances and resolutions. But I guess it's just a coincidence that I also get the information for these foreclosures from the exact same Legal section - which I started doing April 11, 2009 (but thought about doing it months sooner). Maybe they don't like unfavorable ( but true) news of all the foreclosures occuring right under their noses, and during their tenure (regime). You wouldn't know, they hardly ever bring it up.

What will it be next week, appeal a losing battle with Firestone and LifeBridge Christian Church?

Here's this weeks map:
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=111349672941695032576.000467df8352260ac650e&source=embed&ll=40.176906,-105.104141&spn=0.081712,0.154495&z=13

KEY
Blue= 4/11/09 16 new entries ( 41 total)
Red= 4/18/09 20 new entries ( 55 total)
Green= 4/25/09 8 new entries ( 47 total)
Yellow= 5/2/09 9 new entries ( 48 total)
Purple-5/9/09 13 new entries ( 62 total)
Magenta-5/16/09 9 new entries ( 56 total)
Blue(pin)-5/23/09 16 new entries ( 52 total)
Red(pin)-5/30/09 15 new entries ( 62 total)
Green(pin)-6/6/09 9 new entries ( 63 total)
Yellow(pin)-6/13/09 9 new entries ( 57 total)

Breakdown by Ward since I started keeping track (4/11/09)
Ward 1= 60 (Councilmember: Brian Hansen, most foreclosures-least responsive)
Ward 2= 48 (Councilmember: Karen Benker, up for re-election Nov '09)
Ward 3= 31 (Councilmember: Sean McCoy, rumored Mayoral candidate Nov '09)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Longmont City Council vs. Longmont Times-Call

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Mon, 8 Jun 2009 18:51:00 GMT

The last two Longmont City Council meetings featured something you don't see very often: the editor and president of the local paper, Dean Lehman of the Times-Call, spoke each night at Public Invited To Be Heard. The topic? The possibility that the city may stop using them for legal notices, advertising, and other services.

Mr. Lehman had to be guarded in his choice of words, and the council members who are floating this idea sort of danced around the topic as well. But I won't.

As I've said plenty of times before, I don't work for and am often at odds with our local "paper of record", the Times-Call. On occasion they have been very kind to me, other times not so much. I've had plenty of people suggest they are in the tank for the city and run defense for them at times, an opinion I've I agreed with at times as they let this poor excuse for a majority on council off the hook way too often.

But unlike most of this paper's detractors, I'm a paying subscriber and plan to continue to be, as should you. If you decide you don't like them, you can always cancel your subscription - it's a shame we can't deal with some of our elected officials in quite the same efficient manner. I don't always agree with the Times-Call's bias, or the fact there is one at all, but it's been so all over the map lately with its editorials, it's hard to guess where they stand on any particular day.

But let's get to the meat of this issue. A few on council have been building up this noise against the paper since taking office in late 2007. It's pretty obvious that councilmembers Karen Benker and Sean McCoy truly loathe this paper. Ms. Benker made her snide " conservative paper" comment, and Mr. McCoy has been leading this latest charge to end all contracts with the Times-Call. The current excuse Mr. McCoy is using is the $3,786.75 the city paid to publish Ordinance O-2009-21 in the paper. What would be the cost of setting up an RFP (Request For Proposal) and changing how business is currently done? But money isn't really the issue, it's revenge.

These councilmembers don't like the owners (the Lehmans) of this paper and feel they are maligned by them. Mr. McCoy is playing the game that maybe someone else can do the job the city requires at a lower price. Of course he was reminded that the city put a bid out for their own " Pravda", oops, I mean " Longmont Life" printing and the Times-Call had the best price. He also had to be reminded that printing legal notices is a fixed rate statewide. The Times-Call could have easily rubbed these facts in his uneducated face, but they didn't, did they? (Feel free to watch the video of May 26, 2009 on the city's website at the 3:44 mark for Mr. McCoys breathtaking speech on this issue - Better yet, here's a YouTube video with "pop-up video" like captions).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwK-IPyqYRM

In a council communication, it stated that the Denver Post had a circulation of 16,000 in Longmont, which seemed awfully inflated. Turns out it's more like around 6,100. Then the Boulder Daily-Camera was mentioned (est. circulation 2,500), basically anything but the Times-Call (est. circulation 22,500). I'm surprised Mr. McCoy didn't mention the now defunct "The Agenda" or the soon to be defunct "New York Times". Odds are "Longmont Life" won't be used as the Times-Call prints it, but stranger things have happened.

Bottom line: this is a political vendetta, that's all. It's not about saving the city money; that would be known as, if I may be so blunt, a bald faced lie. This is about getting at or hurting your enemies, but I don't suspect Ms. Benker or Mr. McCoy will be so honest to admit it. I find this ironic, as I said before, as this paper goes ever so lightly covering the embarrassing antics of councilmembers such as these two when they could have a field day (as I often do) and really drive up their readership numbers.

The other thing is why now all of a sudden? These two members of council have been around in one form or another for a long time, and as such are part of the old guard they often rail against. Ms. Benker is the second longest tenured member of this council, and Mr. McCoy (as he often reminds us) has been on Planning and Zoning and various boards and the McCoy name in Longmont politics is not exactly a new and fresh one. While they truly define " Old Longmont" and soon should be shown the door in favor of fresh, new ideas and people, I don't recall the Times-Call taking this opinion, do you?

Some people just can't deal with what they perceive as their competition, or in this case political enemies. Some on this council have proven they have amazingly thin skins, which is a bad trait for politicians to have. I don't consider the Times-Call my competition (although they've said they don't feel the same way about me), and I want them not just to survive, but thrive.

But you have to ask yourself, why would our elected officials have it out for the press? I thought we sorted that out about 200 years ago. Did this council not get that memo?

...more on this story as it unfolds.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Longmont running out of moves in annexation battle

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Mon, 8 Jun 2009 01:16:00 GMT

Back in May 2008, I wrote a piece called " Longmont, Take The Deal" where I said it was just about checkmate on this idiotic crusade against Firestone and Weld County over the Union annexation. It came as no shock or surprise to hear the news that Longmont got its rear end handed to them from the courts over this. (Times-Call " City's annexations 'null and void' Judge: Longmont 'abused its discretion'")

Much of that Times-Call article sounds familiar - as it was exactly what I warned about over a year ago. Let's go back, shall we?

"Longmont isn't and hasn't been dealing from a position of strength. It really doesn't hold any cards and stand to lose much. The cute game of de-annexing and re-annexing, including certain roads with the goal of cutting off access to the landowners' property, was a dirty trick and will cost the city at the county, state, and court levels if you allow this charade to continue." - This was the main point of the Times-Call article, the city got caught trying to play cute games, and it lost.

"We've all been entertained by the antics for the last few months by some of your " surrogate agitators and aggressors", but the time for stalling and playing games is over. This deal is probably the absolute best you're going to get; to pass on it would be foolish." - The deal was Firestone's offer to let Longmont buy some of LifeBridge/4C's land for their supposed "buffer". This whole buffer was always a sham, a stalling technique. Longmont passed on the deal, and may very well end up with nothing at all. Great strategy!

I reminded some on council of this supposed majority they thought they spoke for: "Six of the current seven councilmembers were involved in the recent elections of November and January. When you consider what "majority" you think you're representing, keep in mind only three of you actually won with a majority ( Lange, McCoy, and Santos), one of you lost by a majority ( Benker in the Mayors race) and the other two got in with less than a majority ( Hansen and Levison)."

The following opinion hasn't changed: "Personally, I think the landowners are giving away too much in this deal. They've been the target of slanderous and libelous attacks by some mouthpieces of certain councilmembers. We all know some of you ran on, and had the backing of the anti-annexation movement. It's become clearly evident that they were never just "anti-annexation" or looking out for what was "in it" for Longmont." - I suspect we'll be hearing less from these mouthpieces; was " distraught" the term the paper used? Can't remember as it was quickly buried. But like cockroaches, there's always more waiting in the wings to make up for lost or fallen cockroaches.

I also mentioned a "massive lawsuit that Longmont can not afford, and will ultimately lose." It was refreshing to see someone speak bluntly when Dale Bruns said "If they had any brains, they'd put an end to this before they have more rulings that would substantiate damages that we would claim. And if that happens, they better get out their checkbooks, because we're coming after them."

It's becoming apparent brains are in short supply as anyone could see this coming, well, except for the crazy-eyed anti-LifeBridge, tunnel-visioned types and the fools on council who listen to them. It's not as if city council wasn't warned, they were, they just kept on those blinders and now might even appeal this ruling and keep throwing good money down the drain on this losing battle.

Longmont City Council, you're out of moves - and out of money, our money. You and the staff you've directed have wasted enough time and money on this foolish adventure and now you end up with squat. No land (the buffer you wanted), no revenues (from property tax and permit fees), and no goodwill deserved from your new next door neighbor, Firestone.

Well, you do have one more move: retreat. And while you're at it how about apologies to Firestone, LifeBridge, and the taxpaying citizens of Longmont. Fat chance, I know, that would take class. Something the majority on this council has shown very little of.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Longmont foreclosures continue to rise

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Sun, 7 Jun 2009 01:17:00 GMT

I admit it. I missed a week of posting foreclosures because I was studying other communities and the situation they are in. Okay, I was mostly on the beach in Hawaii, but still I saw how mangled government can make a mess of things. As bad as I think we have things here, and they are on the road to terrible, it almost feels like a third-world country (Mexico comes to mind) at times in that state. What's so misleading is its natural beauty, what's so tragic is what is being done to it. It's a microcosm of what could become of this country (and is in the process of happening in California and some other states) and a lesson our city council should take note of.

While I was away I saw how bad our budget shortfall has become, numbers thrown at council that they scoffed at months ago but now have come to fruition. It's similar to what's occurring everywhere, again especially California and Hawaii, that's being met with higher taxes (or requests/demands for them) and fees. Again, Longmont could learn something from this: We survive on new business and development, a place like Hawaii survives on tourism dollars. How did Hawaii deal with the problem? It raised the tax on hotel rates - end result, the emptiest I've seen it over there. How does Longmont deal with its problem? It makes it clear they are anti-growth and development (or their version of smart growth, which is no-growth in reality) with the comments from certain councilmembers. End result, well, just check how those building permits and property tax collections are going.

But lets get to those foreclosures, shall we?
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=111349672941695032576.000467df8352260ac650e&source=embed&ll=40.176906,-105.104141&spn=0.081712,0.154495&z=13

KEY
Blue= 4/11/09 16 new entries ( 41 total)
Red= 4/18/09 20 new entries ( 55 total)
Green= 4/25/09 8 new entries ( 47 total)
Yellow= 5/2/09 9 new entries ( 48 total)
Purple-5/9/09 13 new entries ( 62 total)
Magenta-5/16/09 9 new entries ( 56 total)
Blue(pin)-5/23/09 16 new entries ( 52 total)
Red(pin)-5/30/09 15 new entries ( 62 total)
Green(pin)-6/6/09 9 new entries ( 63 total)

24 new foreclosures in the last 2 weeks (avg 1.7 per day) and a new high of 63 total foreclosures! This bodes very poorly for Longmont's future and recovery, if one is coming. I don't know what the city's unemployment situation is, but if its foreclosure rate is any indication, it's probably worse than the national picture of nearly 10%. Collecting tax revenues (those things that keep the city financially afloat) from declining home values and assessments, lost jobs, and abandoned foreclosed homes is a tough thing. Try as some on council might to blame everything wrong on previous administations gets more and more ridiculous the longer they are in office, and the worse things get.

Keep all of this in mind as you hear (again) more about chickens this week, and how this council will deal with the major setback handed down to them by the courts over the annexations that are now "null and void" (which sounds like a good theme/title for the majority on this council). Will they keep throwing thousands (more like over $100,000) at Firestone with this ongoing loser of a lawsuit? We shall soon see.

Breakdown by Ward since I started keeping track (4/11/09)
Ward 1= 57 (Councilmember: Brian Hansen, most foreclosures-least responsive)
Ward 2= 46 (Councilmember: Karen Benker, up for re-election Nov '09)
Ward 3= 30 (Councilmember: Sean McCoy, rumored Mayoral candidate Nov '09)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Longmont foreclosures - a terrible week

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Sun, 24 May 2009 01:18:00 GMT

New foreclosure reports jumped this week to 16 new entries, more than 2 per day! And the Classified section, which is the D section, had so many notices it had to continue at the end of the C section. Once again, there were many more than 16 new foreclosures, but the others were mostly in Boulder.

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=111349672941695032576.000467df8352260ac650e&ll=40.172184,-105.125256&spn=0.081718,0.154495&z=13

KEY
Blue= 4/11/09 16 new entries ( 41 total)
Red= 4/18/09 20 new entries ( 55 total)
Green= 4/25/09 8 new entries ( 47 total)
Yellow= 5/2/09 9 new entries ( 48 total)
Purple-5/9/09 13 new entries ( 62 total)
Magenta-5/16/09 9 new entries ( 56 total)
Blue(pin)-5/23/09 16 new entries ( 52 total)
-------------------------------------------
The new numbers by Ward broke down fairly proportional to the overall numbers: Ward 1=7, Ward 2=5, Ward 3=4. Here are the overall numbers by Ward.

Ward 1= 46 (Councilmember: Brian Hansen, resignation imminent?)
Ward 2= 39 (Councilmember: Karen Benker, up for re-election Nov '09)
Ward 3= 27 (Councilmember: Sean McCoy, rumored Mayoral candidate Nov '09)

Of note here is Ward 1's Councilmember Brian Hansen. The most consistent complaint, even from people who say they backed and voted for him, is his complete lack of communicating with his constituents. They say he never returns calls, letters, or emails. When I write him and couple other members of council I don't expect a response - which in itself is not acceptable, last time I checked I'm a taxpaying voter just like everyone else. But it must be reassuring to the people in his ward - the highest foreclosure ward in the city - that he's less interested in you, and more interested in things like neighborhood gardens (can people still garden there while in foreclosure?) and starting business incubators (that already exist) on your tax dime.

The rumor going around town is that Mr. Hansen is on the verge of quitting his council seat. I don't make this stuff up, it comes to me in various communications from several people "in the know". The other rumor is that he's going to hold off quitting until after the November election so as to keep his seat safe in case there's a wholesale change to 3 seats that are up for grabs. If there's a shred of truth to these rumors, here's what it boils down to: For political purposes (saving a voting majority, or " bloc" on council), this council is in collusion to waste around $75,000 of city funds (the cost of a special election).

If Mr. Hansen really is thinking of devoting more time to his business (which reportedly includes harassing his neighbor Mountain View Welding, and questionable zoning use of his property), than he should announce his resignation now (effective in November), so candidates can have time to campaign for his vacant seat, voters can save time only having one election, and the taxpayers don't get taken to the cleaners for the additional fees and postage.

But this council has shown a penchant for not taking good advice, I expect it to continue.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Longmont foreclosure weekly update

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Sun, 10 May 2009 01:19:00 GMT

Longmont foreclosures hit a new high this week, according to the Classified section of the Times-Call. There was a total of 62 foreclosures, of which 13 new ones were added. Over the last 5 weeks, on average, Longmont is adding almost 2 foreclosures every day (1.88). Here's the latest map

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=111349672941695032576.000467df8352260ac650e&ll=40.172184,-105.125256&spn=0.081718,0.154495&z=13

KEY
Blue= 4/11/09 16 new entries ( 41 total)
Red= 4/18/09 20 new entries ( 55 total)
Green= 4/25/09 8 new entries ( 47 total)
Yellow= 5/2/09 9 new entries ( 48 total)
Purple-5/9/09 13 new entries ( 62 total)*

Worse than it looks
*The 13/62 numbers don't tell the whole story. There were 3 instances of new foreclosures that appear to be a second addresses (possibly a duplex) under the same borrowers name that are not included in the new/total numbers . Also, one property that had ran its 5 week course in the paper has reappeared and is starting a new 5 week printing.

Troubling trend
When I type this in, and look over which ones are new or old, certain street names are bound to sound familiar. What I'm seeing is multiple homes on a street, in a row, going into foreclosure one right after the other. I find it hard to believe that it's just a coincidence that 3 or 4 homes side by side (more if you include duplexes) have borrowers that all fell on hard times at the exact same time. It's not impossible, but improbable. The only other explanation is plummeting home values and neighbors seeing the handwriting on the wall and just abandoning their home and mortgages. This kind of copycat defaulting could prove devastating to Longmont and other places around the country.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Longmonts foreclosures, and other govt failures

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Tue, 5 May 2009 01:20:00 GMT

Just a snapshot for those that still think things are going so swimmingly in Longmont. Below is a link to a map (which should automatically update) of foreclosures throughout the city. The first week I started tracking these was April 11th, which is why Blue (the first color I used) is predominant, as it depicts new and old foreclosures in that newspaper section. Afterwards, the other colors are just the new additions by week.

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&source=embed&msa=0&msid=111349672941695032576.000467df8352260ac650e&ll=40.175726,-105.107231&spn=0.081713,0.154495&z=13

In the KEY below, you can see new and total entries by week. These are in the Saturday Longmont Times-Call in the Classifieds D section, and these take up most of the Classifieds section. It appears that these foreclosures must run for five (5) consecutive weeks in the paper. Other information included in these foreclosures (which I did not include here) are the names of the people that are on the deeds, the amount originally loaned, the loan balance, and the date of auction.

KEY
Blue= 4/11/09 16 new entries ( 41 total)
Red= 4/18/09 20 new entries ( 55 total)
Green= 4/25/09 8 new entries ( 47 total)
Yellow= 5/2/09 9 new entries ( 48 total)

-----------------------------------------------
Impressions
I waited until I had a few weeks of data to see trends before posting this map and these numbers. One thing to keep in mind when looking at the total numbers when 50 or so don't seem so bad - there are surely many more, they've just run out their 5 week requirement to be published in the paper. While things peaked on 4/18/09, the new and total numbers are fairly stable and the total number is actually higher than the first tracking week of 4/11/09.

One troubling thing when looking deeper into the foreclosures is the differences between the original loan and the amount owed. No doubt there are always seconds and lines of credit taken out on a home when it's appreciating. But many of these homes were bought (or refinanced) when values were already sliding, so enough appreciation to get a second appears unlikely. Some loans were short term and some looked like no payments were ever made at all. Still others could have been loans over 100% of the homes value.

Stealing from the future
Just a hypothetical, philosophical question here: how is taking out several thousand dollars on a second/line of credit (some are over $20k), and then just walking away not stealing? Is it really any surprise that banks are failing all over the country given this situation? Many were forced into dealing in these sub-prime mortgages or face sanctions from the government (thanks to Barney Frank and friends), and lent money to people with income/debt ratios that were set-ups for failure - for the lender and borrower - and we all are paying for it, and will for decades.

Cold hard truths
Not everyone can buy or own a home. Putting someone into a home they can't afford, instead of renting permanently or temporarily to save money, is not doing that person a favor. In every one of these foreclosure notices is a story; many paid several thousand dollars (again, some over $20k) lowering their balance, only to lose their home (and all the money they paid into it) trying to keep their word on a loan.

Meanwhile, while these people are struggling to hold on (some surely are still in these homes), the City of Longmont is playing tiddlywinks with more people who can't afford homes and throwing money at affordable housing programs. Great, more future failure. If the next fact doesn't bother you, nothing will: In a recent City Council meeting, it was revealed that some homes in the affordable housing program have gone into foreclosure. But that's not all - not only did you (if you're a taxpayer) help fund getting someone into one of these homes, some of these people got out seconds/lines of credit, trashed the house, left it, and took the money from the second/line of credit with them - which you will also help fund. Taking it in the front end, and the back.

End affordable housing
This is surely not going to make me popular, but someone has to say it.
Longmont should temporarily (or better yet, permanently) end all funding in its budget for affordable housing. First, help, where possible, people in foreclosure, if they are suitable candidates - in other words, can they keep up payments? Second, (and this is after foreclosure candidates are taken care of) look into affordable renting assistance. Isn't the overall goal to get people off of the streets and into warm places? That doesn't necessarily mean home ownership, and it's a mistake (in my opinion) to make that risky leap, for the city and the potential affordable housing candidate.

Rights, not guarantees
The Declaration of Independence says you have the right to " life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" - which was actually a tweak on a passage from the Virginia Declaration of Rights' " the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety" - which itself was a tweak on John Locke's " no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions". These are rights, not guarantees, not promises, and definitely not endowed by a government entity like some program that gives away breaks on homes at the expense of others (taxpayers in this case). This is not to say government can't help in these situations, it can and should. But it needs to do it smarter and differently.

One example
I'm going to disagree with someone I rarely disagree with, Councilmember Mary Blue, who I believe is perhaps one of the best councilmembers we currently have. She made a statement about not being able to tell the difference between the affordable homes, the Habitat for Humanity homes, and the regular homes in her neighborhood. Ironically, a couple of weeks before she said this during a council meeting, a friend of mine who lives in the same neighborhood painted a completely different picture - that the ratio of these homes is too high, that some bigger homes are wedged and surrounded by these smaller homes that stick out and bring down home values making it nearly impossible to sell - regardless of the market. Some of these homes have also been abandoned. Whatever positives came from these homes was apparently only temporary.

That is one but one example of this failed system, as is the foreclosure map above, and you probably are aware of stories in your own neighborhood along these lines. People can point blame in whichever direction that helps make their own personal points: banks, sub-prime lenders, borrowers, over-regulation, under-regulation, unemployment, or bad luck. For more than one reason, my pick is bad government, whether elected or appointed bureaucrats, nationally and locally. What's being done nationally and locally is not helping, only exacerbating and extending the misery.

You've heard of pro/anti/smart growth, this isn't about big/small government, it's about smart government. Currently, ours isn't very.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Longmontâs Mall theater solution: Netflix!

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Sun, 3 May 2009 02:09:00 GMT

Contrary to what some, or even many, people may think, I don't go out of my way to try to make some members of Longmont City Council look bad. They usually do it all by themselves. Problem is, most people in this city have no idea what kinds of things come out of their mouths, and if they did they would occasionally be appalled - or at least entertained.

On Saturday May 2nd, three councilmembers ( Karen Benker, Sarah Levison, and Brian Hansen) hosted a town meeting along with members of city staff. The hottest topic that took up most of the meeting was the Twin Peaks Mall. Whenever the mall is a topic in the Times-Call, the comments from citizens are many, long, and heated. For the most part, people want something done with this failing piece of property. And yesterday.

Who needs theaters when you have Netflix?
Many of the comments by the above councilmembers were quite revealing. The most ridiculous has to go to Mr. Hansen. Most people in the city seem to be in favor of a new theater, the old one has lousy seating, along with sub-par picture and sound quality. It's ugly and people go elsewhere, plain and simple. When asked about this theater situation, Mr. Hansen said that no one is going to theaters anymore, and a viable alternative is to stay at home and rent from Netflix.

Now, I love Netflix, use it constantly, both streaming and by mail. But how many of you relish the idea of sitting around the glow of your TV (and the warmth of your mercury-laden CFL bulbs) and staying home to watch movies? Keep in mind Netflix doesn't have movies when they first come out, so you have to wait a bit for that new picture you want to see. Mr. Hansen also used the excuse of getting the flu or cold in theaters, which is possible anywhere you have actual interaction with live human beings. Who needs that, right?

It's tough being green
Then the point of driving to the theater came up and how he can just walk down to the mailbox and drop off his DVD. This is not very eco-friendly when you take into account everything involved with multiple vehicles in the US Postal system getting that DVD to and from your mailbox. It's a much smaller carbon footprint to drive a mile, or even several miles, to a theater. Or walk, or ride your bike, or take a bus - just about anything.

Then there's the "benefit to the city" issue: What sales/use tax does Netflix bring to the City of Longmont? I'd guess ZERO. And Mr. Hansen is endorsing a service that competes directly with companies around town that rent or sell DVD's who actually do bring revenues into the city.

His excuse was the improvements in flat panels and home theaters, and that the sound they offer is about as good as you're going to get at a theater. How many of you would agree with that? It may be better than what Twin Peaks Mall theater has NOW, but not in a new stadium seating, Dolby Digital theater, which is about the bare minimum now in new theaters surrounding, but not in, Longmont.

How do you really feel?
But it wasn't just the theater with Mr. Hansen. He said more than once he isn't against the mall redevelopment, yet he has consistently spoken and voted against it. There is a contingent here in Longmont, and they always side with Mr. Hansen and the " Benker-wing" of city council, who have made it clear it's just fine with them if the land where the mall now sits became one big Open Space with prairie dogs as far as the eye can see. It's my opinion that Mr. Hansen's above comments reveal his true feelings about the mall: let it fail, let it be bulldozed, let it be "returned to its natural state" (my term).

What was really infuriating was his comments that now is not the time to do this with the economy in the shape that it's in, and that the city was in a "much better position to do something" prior to the downturn. I've been writing about this situation for well over a year, (see for yourself at this link) and the stalling game this council has played with the mall. There have been public meetings (which Mr. Hansen never attended), studies, a "charrette" - you name it, it's been done ad nuaseam with this mall. And long before these "hard economic times".

The most accurate thing he said was " they (Panattoni) are in the mall business, and I'm not. They're probably more experts than we are." You wouldn't know that watching City Council meetings on this subject for the last year and a half. Karen Benker noted that " people are voting with their feet", which is true, right into other malls and theaters in Boulder, Erie, and Loveland.

Council's Mall hostility
Sarah Levisons continued apparent hostility towards Panattoni continued with her comments about " strip mall stuff like Harvest Junction", and how inexperienced the company is. She also kept saying they could build any time they want - although there is the little issue of getting it through Planning and Zoning and a vote of council - which is a consistent NO vote from Ms. Levison.

Like I said prior, drive by Harvest Junction, is that (and the now planned hotel) the small, meaningless potatoes that some on this council pretend it to be? The question was asked, and Ms. Benker didn't quite get it, so I'll rephrase it: The pro-mall comments at this meeting notwithstanding, about a year ago you were more positive on the mall situation, something changed and as your support went south, the project stalled. Without using the excuse of the economy (your support fell prior to that), why did your support wane? Was it a shifting interest and prioritization towards Downtown? What has Panattoni done wrong, or differently, to warrant this negative treatment?

These things have consequences
Whatever the reason, all of the citizens of Longmont suffer over this council's inaction, stalling, and stonewalling of this issue. If nothing happens with Twin Peaks Mall before November, regardless of your newfound and returned support, the stalling by you and the consistent non-support by your fellow councilmembers ( Levison, Hansen, and McCoy) will be a major election issue. Count on it.

( Additional resources for this report provided by the Longmont Examiner)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pigs, Swine Flu, Paris Hilton and ignorance

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:40:00 GMT

Had me one of those great Marco's Hot Dogs (southeast corner of Main and 17th) last night, not sure if it was pork or not - but I'm willing to bet the bacon it's wrapped in is.

But along with the cast of ignorant's, I found this gem about Paris Hilton, the great diva of intelligence: from http://thesop.org/index.php?article=16043
---------------------------------------
"While the rest of America is freaking out about the swine flu outbreak, Paris Hilton has been happily living her life without any concern about the illness. When paps asked Miss P is she had heard about the swine flu she said she doesn't eat pork."

Reporters know not to ask Paris Hilton her views on geopolitics, global warming or Obama`s economic plan. To spare the clueless Hilton any embarrassment the press only asks her opinion about pop culture matters or current events. If a media personality asks Hilton which is her favorite Jonas brother, he will be on safe ground.

The Swine flu outbreak has been all over the news, it's all people are talking about at home and at work. Paris Hilton was oblivious about the swine flu, she has more important things on her mind like deciding whether she should flash her breasts or her nether regions.

Everyone with two brain cells that they can rub together knows that you don't get swine flu by eating pork products, it's spread by human to human contact.

Good Lord I hope Paris Hilton doesn't catch the swine flu and dies -- entertainment journalists would be lost without her.
------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, people actually listen to this serial doofis, and others like her. So now the pork and beef industry are taking a hit based on uneducated and ignorant comments like these. And when the third-world banana republic dictators, and the sycophants here that are more than happy to repeat their swill, say, like Sean Penn for starters, start going after the pork industry, people suffer.

And when they go after "free markets" and that our government could handle this situation better if only it ran the medical industry - nevermind the abject failure in Great Britain and Canada - where is the government turning? To its stockpile of Tamiflu and Relenza. Who makes that, a government entity? Nope. That would be those evil pharmaceutical companies Roche and GlaxoSmithKline, respectively.

But don't let little things like facts get in the way, not when you could learn oh so much more by living in Fantasyland and getting your news and education from a staff of comedy writers, failed sportscasters, or propaganda peddlers.

Is ignorance really bliss? Just wondering.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Â2009 Chris Rodriguez/Longmont Advocate LLC (Chris Rodriguez is a Longmontresident, and the publisher and broadcaster of Longmont Advocate, a community website and podcast that raises local issues to increase public awareness and interest)

Longmont and Thistle see "the light"

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:28:00 GMT

The Times-Call ran a story on April 22 by Tony Kindelspire with the following headline: " Thistle corrects $38 million error, Blog post brought nonprofit's mistake to light of city". It's worth reading, including the comments and further questions in the comment section.

I'm glad Thistle and the City of Longmont were more responsive after my initial questions and subsequent story, but they really should've been right off the bat. Why does it take public pressure and an outside, non-Longmont staffer to get the story straight from them? I've heard second hand how Thistle reacted to these questions, and know first hand how the city reacted, and I was not impressed. What it takes to get the truth of the matter from these entities should bother citizens.

Turn of events
First, an Open Records request was made, which was denied, followed by questions of why. Then Thistles records were requested directly from them, they said they were going to use the full 30 days allowed for them to respond. When requested in person (which means they must provide them immediately or within the same day) they said they were filing an extension with the IRS, and now have until May 15th. Meanwhile, at the City level, the dodging at two different offices did not instill confidence. I asked the question if City Council could "declassify" this document (the audit) or make it non-confidential so the public could see it. The response I got was " As City Attorney, I cannot give legal advice to third parties." City Council is a third party? I wasn't requesting or in need of legal advice myself.

Fishy financials
But now, the negative $23 million has morphed in to a positive $15 million, that's quite a swing, and quite a mistake. As of this writing the original document showing the negative number remains on the Secretary of State's website. This was filed back in September 2008 which was when their fiscal year ended. The annual financial statement is what needs to be looked in to, and with Thistle saying they filed an extension with the IRS effective April 15th makes one wonder if they're confusing their year end report with their tax documents. Unless of course they secured $38 million in the last 6 months, which seems impossible to believe with the economy the way it is. Also, consider the information at this link from the year before when they showed a net loss of $33,514 and a fund balance of negative $31,910.

City and Thistle stumble
The Times-Call story said "The city hired its own outside accountant to review Thistle's financial statements, according to city finance director Jim Golden." So this was not a salaried city staff employee, which should have made this document even more open to the public.

Also in the story: " The information posted was inaccurate, and I didn't oversee it as well as I should have," (Thistle CEO Mary) Roosevelt said Tuesday. " And when I became aware of it, we corrected it immediately." This "inaccurate" report was filed over 6 months ago. This is not a recent development, although Ms. Roosevelt's knowledge of it is. That in itself should pose some questions about this organization: If you're involved in a project that will get public scrutiny, especially the kinds of questions like "can you deliver on a project", when you're asking for the City of Longmont to fork over money and land exceeding $9 million - would you be totally unaware of a $38 million dollar error with the Secretary of State?

And city staff should question why when asked for information like this that they initially resorted to dodging and finding reasons not to answer the question. They knew they hired an outside source to look in to Thistle, that should have ended the Open Records debate right there. They should have known Thistle filed the same report with the city's housing authority, also making it open to the public.

All that ends well(?)
If Thistle's financials are sound and they can be counted on to complete the proposed project, great. I hope the situation is not as fishy as it still appears and we're not left holding the bag if things go bad. This is not about Downtown, work-force housing, or mixed used development - although I'm sure some readers incorrectly came to that conclusion with this story. It's about fairness (think Panattoni), transparency (Thistle and the City's failure at it), learning from past mistakes (previous discontinued project and FasTracks situation) - and not having to have to say in a few years "how did we miss the warning signs?"

No excuses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Â2009 Chris Rodriguez/Longmont Advocate LLC (Chris Rodriguez is a Longmont resident, and the publisher and broadcaster of Longmont Advocate, a community website and podcast that raises local issues to increase public awareness and interest)

What is the City of Longmont hiding?

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 02:33:00 GMT

The City of Longmont is hiding something from its citizens to protect a "favored" client: Thistle Community Housing, who has proposed to partner with the Longmont Downtown Development Authority (LDDA) on a mixed-use project in downtown Longmont . The City Council needs to explain why it's considering giving millions in taxpayer dollars to a non-profit developer with potentially serious financial problems. And the city's financial director needs to explain why he's keeping this developer's financial problems a secret.

Thistle wants $9 million from the city
According to a March 26 Times-Call story, LDDA wanted more financial information from Thistle before moving forward with their project. The article stated, "Under the tentative agreement, the LDDA would put up $5.5 million out of its tax increment financing fund and the city would donate the land - valued last year at about $2 million - and would waive about $800,000 in development fees." And a "$752,000 financing gap that one side or the other must fill". According to my math, that's $9,052,000!

City's Secret Audit
I received an anonymous tip that the City of Longmont did an audit of Thistle, and that the financial audit revealed serious problems. Although LDDA board members were able to see the audit, no one could keep a copy because Thistle asked the Longmont Finance Director Jim Golden to keep the document's findings a secret.

Now the city is denying Open Records requests to release this information. Thistle is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization. How many of you know what that is? I did a random poll of people, none were attorneys, but all knew what a 501(c)(3) was: a group that you can give contributions to and write it off on your taxes. Just about every aspect of these types of organizations is supposed to be open to public scrutiny.

IRS Code mandates Thistle disclose its financial records
When I asked the Longmont City Attorney Eugene Mei about this, his response was: "I am unaware of Thistle's corporate status, or the law pertaining to 501(C)3 entities." Let me help out here. At the following link http://www.990online.com/fedlaws.html there is an explanation of this part of the IRS code. Here are some relevant highlights:

26 USC 6104(d). Public Inspection of Certain Annual Returns and Applications for Exemption. (1) In general.--In the case of an organization described in subsection (c) or (d) of section 501 --
(A) a copy of-- (i) the annual return filed under section 6033 (relating to returns by exempt organizations) by such organization, and
(ii) (refers to exemptions, no exemption has been requested)
(B) upon request of an individual made at such principal office or such a regional or district office, a copy of such annual return and exempt status application materials shall be provided to such individual without charge other than a reasonable fee for any reproduction and mailing costs.
The request described in subparagraph (B) must be made in person or in writing. If such request is made in person, such copy shall be provided immediately and, if made in writing, shall be provided within 30 days.

State Records show Thistle $23.5 million in the hole
Thistle's records, by federal law, are not confidential. Why is Longmont treating it as such? Here's where it gets interesting, and the point of this story: Thistle did file a short preliminary report with the Colorado Secretary of State's office, as it is required to do. The numbers are troubling, which I'd guess is why the LDDA wanted more financial information and the city did an audit on Thistle. According to this Secretary of State link, for the year ending 9/30/2008 , Thistle had expenses that outpaced revenues by over $4 million, and an End of Year balance of -$23,535,929. Those are both negative numbers. What hasn't been released yet is the full report describing the sources of revenue, where the expenses went to, and why they were nearly triple the revenue coming in.

What is in the city audit Thistle doesn't want the public to know?
Now maybe there is a good explanation for this and the numbers could just reveal what is happening to many non-profits during these tough financial times. But these poor numbers should make the public very curious about what the city's independent audit revealed. The numbers published online by Thistle were bad enough. What is it that the city found that makes Thistle demand that the findings remain a secret?

If you'll recall, 2 years ago a similar downtown project was discontinued after it was revealed there was a $9 million "financial gap". And of course we know about the bait and switch of FasTracks and how the price continues to go up and the construction gets further and further away. Regardless of your opinion about this project and this organization, we need to make sure something similar doesn't happen partnering up with Thistle.

Some council members are playing favorites with developers
Some members of this council stalled Panattoni's request to move forward with the redeveloping the Twin Peaks Mall, and their emboldened city mouthpieces have smeared Panattoni, a company with a proven record. Look at Harvest Junction and the news releases featuring new stores and even a new hotel, as well as their plans for a new theater and their overall vision for the mall ( no, I'm not paid or asked by anyone to say the above).

But when members of this council favor (Thistle) in an area they'd prefer to focus on (Downtown), it gets completely different treatment, even if they may not be financially sound. Something's rotten here, and the involvement of those involved, including certain members of city council and city staff, should be held accountable. And preferably before this project even gets close to reality.

Go to the LDDA board meeting on Wednesday and ask some good questions
The LDDA will be holding a meeting this Wednesday April 22 at 528 Main Street at 4:15 p.m. If you are concerned about this issue, show up and ask questions, like: Can Thistle really come up with the money to fund this project, or not? Is the city going to be left holding the bag if Thistle goes belly up? Is Thistle using taxpayer money to get itself out of a financial jam? Ask the council members who were on the Technical Review Committee (TRC) that recommended this project if they are aware of this financial information? The council liaison is Karen Benker (303)774-7745 karenbenkerlg@earthlink.net and the staff liaison is Finance Director Jim Golden (who originally denied the Open Records request) (303)651-8629 jim.golden@ci.longmont.co.us

A dark cloud is going to remain over this project unless Longmont lives up to its promise of open and honest government.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did Pommer take illegal contributions?

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 06:53:00 GMT

The fun never seems to stop with Representative John "Jack" Pommer and campaign finance laws. One might ask why I'm on Part 3 of this saga, good question. If the paper that covers most of his district (that would be the Times-Call) was doing its job and covering it as it should, I wouldn't have to bother. But it's not, and I don't understand why. This isn't opinion; it's fact, it's news.

It was bad enough when he was clearly in violation of late or no reporting owing $20,000 (found here) and then finally paid the fines, but not all of them (found here). The only people who seemed to notice or care where his apologists who saw something inspirational about an elected official caught cheating. Once it got more visibility and hits at Examiner.Com, they became truly unhinged.

Here's some info for those that don't know, although I've said it repeatedly: I was the original Longmont Examiner and part of the original class of Examiners, which now number over 1,600 nationwide. Last year my wife took over that job as I no longer had time for it, and has been getting way more traffic than I ever did. She was exactly what they were looking for, and is consistently ranked in the top tier in her category. Quite a feat for someone who writes about a little place called Longmont.

She made no secret of who she was married to (although I don't see how that really matters) through her bio and a profile of what I do. Another point I made publicly was how she was taking over the majority role in our Voter Registration Drive (VRD) called Vote! Longmont, and has written and spoken publicly about it. This Pommer issue was right up her alley as she had just address this at a Longmont City Council meeting about a related subject. She is more than capable to speak to these issues and doesn't need me or anyone else as a "source". Nor does she need a disclaimer any time she writes who her significant other is. It's idiocy that this even has to be explained, right?

See, we are what I like to call (I'll speak slowly) a "team". We usually investigate and write about different things, but sometimes they cross, like this Pommer story did. I even warned her of the nutjobs that would come after her over what was a pretty fair treatment of Mr. Pommer - way more kind than I was. And they didn't disappoint, right on cue. Nevermind that every part of the story was true, they just couldn't have this kind of coverage, and the messengers must be attacked as "pushing an agenda based on lies and false objectivity." And this was after it was reported Mr. Pommer admitted his mistake. But that doesn't matter.

Well, like the beginning of this article says, Mr. Pommer might have more troubles. This according to Face The State (yes, that's a source, which now makes me a source?): "Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, has since filed another late report. The latest document is raising eyebrows because it contains more than $5,000 in lobbyist contributions that may be illegal."

"On the April 16 report, Pommer lists campaign contributions from registered lobbyists and special interest groups made on February 5. The date is significant, as it falls exactly a month into the legislative session. Under Colorado campaign finance law, it is illegal for lobbyists or special interest groups that lobby to give or solicit money for the campaigns of state office-holders while the legislature is in session.

"The way the law reads, it says lobbyists shall not give," said Rich Coolidge, spokesman for the Secretary of State. "The burden falls on the lobbyist."

"Lobbyist contributions came from Jane Urschel of the Colorado Association of School Boards and consultant Thomas Shilling, as well as the Colorado Professional Firefighters, the Colorado Livestock Association, the Qwest Employees Political Action Committee, and the Boulder Valley Education Association. The total contributions from these six entities total $5150."

"While the possibility exists that Pommer may have received the contributions prior to the start of the legislative session, state law requires that candidates report the contributions were they are received, not when they are deposited." (emphasis added)
----------------------------------------------------
Here's a heads-up (you obviously saw this coming), I wouldn't be surprised if the Longmont Examiner ( full disclosure: that's my wife) covers this in more detail as it's as much or more up her alley than mine. Apologies to all you normal, common-sensical people for wasting your time having to explain the obvious. Others apparently require it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obamboozled?

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 18:53:00 GMT

It's not like seeing the leader of the Free World going around making a mockery of the office is something I revel in, no matter who it is. It's also not like there was such a terrific alternative. But it is interesting to see The One break one promise after another to those bamboozled into voting for him. Most importantly, it's amusing to make fun of it and those that fell for it.

Here's what some people just don't get: let's say your candidate loses, whether it's on the national or local level. First mistake is "your candidate", like I said before, it's not worth it to get too attached. Second mistake is when the sore winners who think things now must really stink in your collective lives and you must now accept their way or the highway. You surely recall the gloating, even The One's smarmy "I won" comment.

Here's what they miss: Personally, our traffic (and the money it brings) and fodder to cover has skyrocketed since the '07 election of the new abysmal council members here locally and the ineptitude on the national scale. Times couldn't be better, sure can't say the same for the ones who supposedly "won". Noticed how they've actually become more angry and caustic, if that was even possible? Again, amusement is the key there, too.

With all there is to cover, as good as times could be, there's not enough time in the day to do it all. It's not as if there wasn't plenty to cover in my podcasts, there was and still is. Just don't have the time. I've had requests to restart the podcast, and downloads are still humming along even though I haven't done one since December. The written word is getting more hits than ever with a growing cast of contributors. So the demand is there, and every day our local and national leaders embarrass themselves, that demand only goes up.

Which brings us back to The One's latest broken promise: denial of habeas corpus for terrorists, or if you prefer enemy non-combatants. Actually, I believe terrorism isn't an accepted word any longer. According to Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano it's called "man-caused disasters." It's okay Obama-voters, you can admit this is really, really lame, yet humorous. But back to the habeas corpus issue.

Glenn Greenwald wrote something over at Salon.Com covering this far better (and with more time than I have) that is worth reading. It has past quotes and broken promises galore. Here's an Obama quote referring to the Boudemiene ruling: "The Court's decision is a rejection of the Bush Administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo - yet another failed policy supported by John McCain. This is an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus."

And then there's this one, while on the Senate floor: "But as a parent, I can also imagine the terror I would feel if one of my family members were rounded up in the middle of the night and sent to Guantanamo without even getting one chance to ask why they were being held and being able to prove their innocence." And, "But restricting somebody's right to challenge their imprisonment indefinitely is not going to make us safer. In fact, recent evidence shows it is probably making us less safe."

This last quote is from Mr. Greenwald himself, figured I'd just leave it the way it is as it says it all: "I'm not searching for ways to criticize Obama. I wish I could be writing paeans celebrating the restoration of the Constitution and the rule of law. But these actions -- these contradictions between what he said and what he is doing, the embrace of the very powers that caused so much anger towards Bush/Cheney -- are so blatant, so transparent, so extreme, that the only way to avoid noticing them is to purposely shut your eyes as tightly as possible and resolve that you don't want to see it, or that you're so convinced of his intrinsic Goodness that you'll just believe that even when it seems like he's doing bad things, he must really be doing them for the Good. If there was any unanimous progressive consensus over the last eight years, it was that the President does not have the power to kidnap people, ship them far away, and then imprison them indefinitely in a cage without due process. Has that progressive consensus changed as of January 20, 2009? I think we're going to find out."

Go ahead Obama-voters, defend this, remember when you do you are defending Bush policies here. And it's not a matter of whether or not I or anyone else agrees with what his administration is doing in regards to this issue. For me and I'm sure plenty of others it's the dishonesty and pandering some people will do to get elected. And the people who fall for it. And now, the people who will defend it. Good little lemmings and locksteppers.

You know, sometimes it's just too easy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pommer fesses up, pays up, sort of

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 22:59:00 GMT

So much for the supposed partisan attack machine. Yes, someone to look up to and admire. Actually, by the quotes given below, sounds a little Forrest Gump'ish and hapless. Unlike some other whiners in town, I won't stomp my feet and DEMAND you all admit I was right.

The comment at the end of the Face The State piece is a good one: all you chumps who contributed money to his campaign, did you know you were funding this kind of ineptitude? Yes, he wrote the check from his campaign committee funds. Jokes on you!
---------------------------------------------
This from the Denver Post:
File this under "embarrassing"
A Boulder lawmaker is socked with $20,000 in late fees for missing numerous finance-report deadlines.
By Jessica Fender

It's stupid. It's embarrassing.
And, really, there's not a good explanation why it happened, says Rep. Jack Pommer.

The Boulder Democrat missed multiple campaign-finance report-filing deadlines and racked up about $20,000 in late fees over two years.
" I screwed up a lot of paperwork," said Pommer.

Lawmakers who miss monthly disclosure deadlines accrue fines of $50 a day. Part of Pommer's debt, which began accruing in 2007, was sent to a collection agency and amassed more late fees.

Pommer, a member of the legislature's powerful Joint Budget Committee, on Tuesday wrote the secretary of state's office a check for $15,000 taken from his campaign account. The withdrawal wiped out his funds on hand.

Pommer said he had no new expenditures or fundraising to report, and it was a matter of logging on to a state website and pressing a button.

The delinquency was first noted by Face the State, a conservative blog and news site.

The lack of disclosure incensed Colorado Ethics Watch.

"All candidates, but especially incumbent officials, are expected to strictly adhere to legal requirements for transparency in their campaign activities," said Chantell Taylor, director of the watchdog group. "Rep. Pommer shirked those obligations by ignoring the well-established campaign filing deadlines, and this is not the first time."

Pommer also missed deadlines when he first arrived at the House but asked then-Secretary of State Donetta Davidson to waive the fines. She did. Pommer, a former businessman, acknowledged that bureaucracy has never been his strong suit.

"I had a great business partner, who was really good at paperwork, which is why we didn't go out of business," Pommer said.
---------------------------------------------
And this from Face The State:
Pommer pays up

Hours after a Face the State report exposed Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, for owing close to $20,000 to the state for fines relating to delinquent campaign finance reports, he appeared in the Secretary of State's office, check in hand and ready to settle.

Pommer forked over $15,000 to the Secretary of State, writing a check from his campaign committee. He has appealed to the Secretary of State for a waiver of the balance, which includes $4,050 for his latest delinquent report and outstanding fees from the state collections agency. Details of his assessed penalties and appeal for a waiver can be seen here (PDF)

Either Secretary of State Bernie Buescher, a Democrat, or Deputy Secretary Bill Hobbs will make the final call on waiving the balance of fees owed by Pommer.

It's good to see that Pommer finally filed his report from January and was so quick to pay his outstanding fees once they were publicized. But writing a check for $15,000 from his campaign committee raises another issue: would his donors be glad to know their generous contributions went to pay late fees for irresponsible filings? We think not.

Pommer did not return calls for comment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pommer has no time for campaign rules

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Mon, 6 Apr 2009 18:06:00 GMT

Face The State has broken the story that State House Representative Jack Pommer (Democrat - District 11) owes nearly $20,000 for delinquent filings. The entire article can be found here, but here are some highlights:

"He sits on the powerful Joint Budget Committee and chairs the House Appropriations Committee", sounds sort of like US Representative Charlie "tax cheat extraordinaire" Rangel (Democrat - NY), doesn't it? These types that make the tax rules for the rest of us, yet can't be bothered with following any rules.

"Since 2006, Pommer and his registered agent David Kirk have filed at least five delinquent reports, one of which is still accumulating fines." " Pommer successfully ran for re-election in 2008, and has yet to file his report on contributions and expenditures due January 15, 2009". Apparently you can see all of these reports, including being sent to collections, at the Secretary of State's website (view it here). Mr. Pommer and Company appear to not be very responsive to email, or snailmail to his home address or his registered agents address.

What a great example representing us!

Mr. Pommer also made the news last week when he accidentally let out the following admission: (also from Face The State) "Weaning somebody off a subsidy is God awful painful when somebody gets used to having somebody else pay for them. When you take that money they howl, they scream, and they fight like crazy to keep it." Oops, was his mic supposed to be on? While I find the old time western imagery of his "God awful painful" description entertaining - sounds like something straight out of "Old Yeller" - he accidentally let out the leftist argument for keeping people down and nearly into servitude with these social programs that do far more harm than good.

This is that age old complete nonsense that people have bought into for decades, that the Democratic Party is for the little guy. Can this permanently be put to rest? It's one of the biggest lies ever told. Keeping people in their place through intentional separating based on circumstances (the left is superb at class warfare) often is nothing but intentional or unintentional racism.

Do people at times need help? Absolutely, but the left's idea of help is permanent reliance on government mostly for the purpose of votes and office retention. Are there exceptions? Are some of these types genuinely concerned for the plight of these people? Perhaps, but those are diluted by the ones doing it purely for political reasons. With Mr. Pommers admission here, he just doesn't want to have to put up with the racket made by his constituents who are so used to all this free government cheese. He knows he'll be reminded "hey, we voted for you, we expected this to continue" just like Betsy Markey is being reminded how she got into office and what's expected of her.

Of course the irony in Mr. Pommers case, and no doubt hundreds of other representatives at various levels, is that they, while they campaign, tell these same people "remember what I've given you (actually what the taxpayers through the government have given you) when it's time to vote. Those big bad other guys may cut it off, don't forget!" Sounds like mobsters, but that would be giving mobsters a bad name.

If you'd like to contact Representative Pommer, I'd like to say he can be reached (but it appears he can't be reached, he doesn't respond to inquiries from the Secretary of State's Office) at (303)866-2780 or jack.pommer.house@state.co.us . Good luck .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Markey, the wolves are from within

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Sat, 4 Apr 2009 06:38:00 GMT

First off, I want to congratulate Congresswoman Betsy Markey for her vote against President Obama's terrible concept of a budget. Here is her statement after voting: " I grappled with this budget but ultimately could not support it. I was elected to bring fiscal responsibility back to Washington, and I believe that Congress must be more aggressive in cutting our federal deficit. At a time when families all across the country are tightening their belts, we can do a better job of rooting out inefficiencies and cutting out government waste."

Unfortunately, she was in the minority and it passed mostly along party lines 233-196. Ms. Markey was among 20 Democrats who voted against this budget, no Republicans voted for it.

More unfortunate is the attack about to commence on Ms. Markey and other so-called moderate Democrats from the loathsome left wing of that party. This starts at the bottom, the sewer of this party, and goes all the way to the top. President Obama let it be known to one of his own party members who voted against the stimulus " Don't think we're not keeping score, brother." That was Oregon Representative Peter DeFazio, he saw the light and went ahead and voted for this budget. Coincidence, I'm sure.

Then, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen went begging groups like MoveOn.Org and Americans United for Change to back off going on the attack towards politicians precisely in Markey's situation. Even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said " These groups should leave them alone. It's not helpful to me. It's not helpful to the Democratic Caucus". Problem is, people like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, and yes, Barack Obama have egged on this fringe element of their party for years to get where they are. Didn't one of these characters say something along the lines " we own this (the Democratic) party now?"

In my last piece, I said she was about to disappoint a bunch of people who supported her. I should have added "God help you when you do", because if you thought you were dealing with rational, sensible types, you were wrong. A local example was a Times-Call Open Forum letter to Ms. Markey basically reminding her who voted her in and what they expect. This is pretty much what I expected, but this other, much larger machine (that won't be slowed by Obama) has a much higher chance of doing serious damage.

This isn't proof of this party having a big tent, unless it's just a big circus tent. It's just a pack of malcontents with their own little clubs that by and large vote similarly. Whoever they perceive " the man" to be, or " the establishment", that's who they'll rail against, as long as that's the current popular thing to do. While in this fantasy of considering themselves as anti-establishment or even revolutionary, they really are just tools for a much bigger machine that is probably everything they're against - depending on the wind or mood that day, week, or month.

And Ms. Markey, they have been unleashed, with you and some of your colleagues in their cross hairs. They know who the potentially vulnerable candidates are in 2010, yet I don't think that will stop them. You've no doubt heard of the Republicans that are lining up for the race against you; expect primary challengers from your own party to suddenly appear. If not, maybe these wolves will leave you alone, for now.

Isn't that a nice group of people you courted to win? Locally or nationally, they are no friends of the Republic or freedom loving people. Of course I'm not talking about the rank-and-file "normal people"; these are the radicals, attack machines, lunatic fringe, hateful types, and frankly, the screwballs of your party. You surely met them on the campaign trail, crazy eyes and just not right or all there. The ones you probably thought " sure don't want to get on their bad side". Too late.

Instead of saying the line that always seems to get me in trouble (" you made your bed, now sleep in it"), I'll just say you have my sympathy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deciphering political doublespeak

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 00:01:00 GMT

I about fell over laughing when I saw the following tagline "Members of Congress must embrace accountability - People across the country are tightening their belts, and we must expect our government to do the same." That was the op-ed title from U.S. Representative (Dem-04) Betsy Markey in a special to the Times-Call on March 25, 2009.

Six days earlier I wrote a piece requesting an apology for what our current crop of representatives pulled with their signing of the stimulus bill without reading it. I'm not going to jump to conclusions and delusions of grandeur that these representatives actually read it or care what I wrote, but I did log a lot of hits from U.S. House of Representatives and Democratic National Headquarters computers. They like Googling themselves apparently, cute.

But this pack of nonsense from Ms. Markey was just too much, and more than likely people bought it hook, line, and sinker. She just signed the bill that people are howling over because of these AIG bonuses, yet now proclaims she and her fellow representatives "must embrace accountability" and "tighten their belts"? This is the same old claptrap of "do what I say, but not what I do" in the guise of freshman, inexperienced politics. This of course includes their party leader, President Obama, whose last press conference was a clinic in doublespeak and dodging.

She mentions "implementing effective policies", like these ridiculous deficits over the next 12 years? Like not noticing these AIG bonuses you signed for? She's "proud" of her "efforts to bring real change to our government". Sounds like more of the same, including the lousy congressional ratings. But what "change" has she brought? Once again, I'm all ears.

She worries about the word "accountability" being "in danger of becoming just another meaningless buzzword". She's right, and she's engaging in that very activity. What total hypocrisy and double standards.

When I met and spoke to her my advice was to try to run a clean campaign and stay above the mud slinging, and that she'd probably have a good chance at winning. I wasn't saying that because I necessarily wanted her to win. While being a nice enough lady, I saw her as a fairly inexperienced, unseasoned future bureaucrat who couldn't even keep our fairly large union's name straight. But I gave this suggestion because she needs to keep in mind the district she represents, which is not some heavily leftwing district by any stretch of the imagination.

You that were fooled into voting for her, you've also been put on notice by her, if you didn't catch it. If you read between the lines of her op-ed she's telegraphing that she's about to disappoint a lot of people who voted for her. Sure didn't sound that way during the campaign jumping fully onboard the Obama bandwagon like a bunch of other suckers. This is the problem with going all in with the hero worship when it involves politicians, whether its people seeking office or their minions. Of any party. Sooner or later these people let you down or will be let down, and they sure take it harder than finding out something like Britney Spears isn't all she was cracked up to be, or the pundit (or governor) they follow is a pedophile, home wrecker, or tax cheat.

When in comes to Ms. Markey, this isn't some newfound independent streak, it's the classic art of political self preservation. She knows she's in a mostly rural, fairly Republican district. She knows she won against an incumbent (and incumbent party) that wasn't very popular. She knows she played dirty during the campaign. She knows candidates are lining up against her for 2010 already and that she'll be in one of the national "targeted" races. She knows she needs either a) Republican votes to win, or b) hope, as in 2008, that Republicans don't show up on Election Day, or both. She hopes op-eds like this one will fool enough people into believing what she says, and ignores her actual actions on The Hill.

Since I gave advice once, and know these blog entries somehow get the attention of certain sites (mentioned above), here's another tip for Ms. Markey: be yourself. That's right, be yourself. You were elected to represent this district, but being this is (still, for now) a representative government, you don't need our constant approval or endless polls, nor do you need numerous town hall meetings to hear griping and your sycophants nudging. (But if you are going to have these kinds of meetings, can they at least be in non-partisan locations and venues?)

Stand and vote on your principles, whatever they may be. You won, with a majority even. Don't just pander for the next election, actually do something, you may not have a second chance (as in term). And I think you know that. If how you vote now is contrary to what you "sold" during the campaign (for instance, did you say you were against the assault weapons ban? I didn't hear that), explain it - don't try to cover it up like this op-ed piece does. Your voting record will be closely scrutinized, count on it. Might as well make the best of it.

But while you're at it, don't forget you don't just represent your party or the drones who would vote for you no matter what. You don't just represent women, you don't just represent this district or state. You represent this country above all else. Waste that and you don't deserve support or re-election.

Pommer, fellow travelers continue disdain for Electoral College, U.S. Constitution

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 20:42:00 GMT

Itâs baaaack. Once again our elected representatives at the state capitol have decided that your vote and your voice comes second to theirs. For the umpteenth time, they want to get Colorado out of the business of having to deal with the Electoral College system and go along with this "National Popular Vote" movement. Itâs a "movement" alright, if you get my drift.

This years model is House Bill 1299, sponsored by Longmont's own John "Jack" Pommer, Democrat - District 11. He also was onboard with the earlier versions of this nonsense, as Iâve written about extensively. This time though it didn't originate in the State Senate like the past versions, usually sponsored by Brandon Shaffer (another one of our illustrious local representatives), and I hope heâs seen the light on this issue - but I doubt it.

Ironically, the House is usually where the previous Senate bills went to die. Hopefully, one of our other local representatives Paul Weissmann will reprise his role and put this in the political graveyard where it belongs.

I'll remind again that a similar measure went before the voters in Colorado in 2004 and was soundly defeated, rejected by 65% of the voters. But the main sponsor Andy Kerr, Democrat - District 26, similar to other pushers of this idea (Brandon Shaffer, Ken Gordon, etc) thinks the legislature should overrule you, even though a vast majority of you voted against this.

So far only a bare handful of states have gone along with this scheme, equaling a whopping 50 Electoral votes. It wouldn't kick in until enough states approved this scheme equaling 270 Electoral College votes. But these types have a long view of things with their systematic watering down and killing of what they call a "living Constitution". But that aside (and thatâs a lot to put aside) it's just plain ridiculous for some states to use one system for electing a President, and others to use some half-baked scheme as the other.

Think it's so great? Put it to the voters, again. Why don't they? Why do they circumvent the voters and pass this as quietly as possible in state legislatures? Because they know what will happen, the 2004 vote is proof.

GUEST EDITORIAL: Longmont's Cabal of 4 lied, the economy dies

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 01:08:00 GMT

Longmont's Council leadership in the 9th year of 21 Century has regressed to the imagination and creativity of a 1968 San Francisco flower child in a hippie commune. This fractious partisan cabal of 4 members ignores the interests & rights of those who do not share their private views & interests in the community. Citizens who exercise their fundamental Constitutional rights are punished if they take economic actions opposed by the partisan cabal.

The most dangerous aspect of the Cabal's anti-Constitution/Charter policies is promotion of class warfare against successful people to promote distribution of wealth. The illusion of progress is staged with put up projects taunting the "affordable housing policy", in reality the home purchasers in new neighborhoods subsidize purchases for people who couldn't afford to buy in that neighborhood otherwise. The "necessity" for "affordable housing" is intentionally designed into the city's economic scheme of things through its policy of social engineering. The cabal's policy is to put free economic development & opportunity on hold using open space purchases to take valuable production out of the private sector; and using studies and lawsuits as illusionary substitutes for constructive action.

The lawsuits against Firestone are punitive actions to further Longmont's redistribution of wealth policies. Contrary to Council lies, costs will ultimately be borne by new home buyers in Firestone and by Longmont taxpayers. Good people can disagree, but most of us believe in the same fundamental precept that this Nation was founded upon: equal opportunity and equal protection under the law for all persons. The Cabal's personal prejudices & political interests are contrary to this fundamental principal which both Nation and City depend upon for unity, prosperity, freedom and liberty for all. The new cabal members lied to get elected and Longmontâs economy dies.

Rich Yale

Amateurism from the top down

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Sun, 8 Mar 2009 00:59:00 GMT

Itâs a new day in America, or so weâre told. More like that ghastly movie âDay After Tomorrowâ if youâre one of the millions who have seen your job go away or a good portion of your retirement account. We kept hearing that âthe adults are in charge nowâ, funny, we havenât heard that lately.

Buffoonery is in full bloom from Washington all the way down to little old Longmont. Letâs start at the top and work our way downward, literally and figuratively. From the Telegraph UK, in reference to President Obamas snub of British Prime Minister Brown: âSources close to the White House say Mr Obama and his staff have been "overwhelmed" by the economic meltdown and have voiced concerns that the new president is not getting enough rest.â But what parties they are throwing!

And this gem of true class: âMr Brown handed over carefully selected gifts, including a pen holder made from the wood of a warship that helped stamp out the slave trade - a sister ship of the vessel from which timbers were taken to build Mr Obama's Oval Office desk. Mr Obama's gift in return, a collection of Hollywood film DVDs that could have been bought from any high street store, looked like the kind of thing the White House might hand out to the visiting head of a minor African state.â Yep, in over his head. Maybe Hillary Clinton was right.

Speaking of our new Secretary of State, the Russian media is having a field day with her âresetâ button that she gave to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov: âBut instead of the Russian word for "reset" (perezagruzka) it featured a slightly different word meaning "overload" or "overcharged" (peregruzka).â

Which brings us to our local, ahem, leaders. From the Times-Call: âA Longmont lobbying effort, including Dove chocolate squares taped onto sheets of talking points, fell short of securing federal stimulus funds for a new Diagonal Highway interchange. Before the start of Wednesday nightâs Denver Regional Council of Governments meeting, Councilwoman Karen Benker distributed the chocolate-bearing fact sheets â and a letter from Mayor Roger Lange â arguing the case for a $25 million interchange at Colorado highways 119 and 52. Benker is Longmontâs representative on the DRCOG board...â It gets better.

In another Times-Call story, at the same DRCOG event (reminder of previous sentence â âBenker is Longmontâs representative on the DRCOG boardâ): âNo one stepped forward at Wednesdayâs hearing to testify in support of Longmontâs application for the McIntosh Lake trail proposal.â Did this part occur prior to the other? Was she out buying a $3 bag of Doves? The result was the same whether Councilmember Benker was there (in the first case) or not (in the second case) â nothing for Longmont. Thanks for the great representation!

But what did get approved? Among other things, a project for Nederland that will help them with their Frozen Dead Guy Days. Ironic that Ms. Benker should choose chocolate from a huge food conglomeration (I happen to love Doves by the way â only if dark) at around the same moment news breaks of Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory closing its store at the Twin Peaks Mall (another place I love and will miss). Itâs almost like dancing on the grave of your constituents who just lost their jobs. Wait, someone did that too, Congressman Jared Polis about the Rocky Mountain News shutting down.

The fun never ends.

Abandoned city chicken alert!

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Tue, 3 Mar 2009 00:00:00 GMT

Something you probably won't see in the paper or hear in council:

Coming across the police frequency - somebody left their house (not for the day, left as in gone) and LEFT their chicken behind. The neighbor called police dispatch not knowing what to do about it.

So even before this ridiculous new law is in force, these city chickens are costing us money in police time. At the same time as this incident, there was a domestic disturbance, someone being followed for committing graffiti, a traffic accident, and more. But time was taken away from these more important matters because of a chicken.

It's only beginning...

Illegal immigrant tuition and fumbling councilmembers

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 04:09:00 GMT

Did ya catch the Feb 24th Longmont City Council meeting? Some of the more interesting and entertaining parts you might not read about in the local paper. Somebody out there is making YouTube videos (nope, it's not me) of some of the stranger occurrences, which you are free to check out some of them at my YouTube Channel.

Check this one out, I saw some comments on the Times-Call website about this, now I know what they were talking about...

There was more, like several times asking to clarify what a YES or NO vote meant. Now, I've been known to join in the post-council meeting get-togethers at O'shays for a drink or two (I don't think I've paid for one of my own yet though). But there was something else Councilmember Sean McCoy referred to at this meeting that got my attention:
Senate Bill 170, which you can read in its entirety at this link.

The first sentence sends off alarms for me: "Requires that a person, regardless of immigration status, who attends a Colorado high school for at least 3 years and enrolls in a Colorado institute of higher education within 5 years after either graduating from a Colorado high school or earning a general education diploma in Colorado shall be charged the same tuition rate and shall be eligible for tuition assistance under the same criteria as a person who establishes domicile in Colorado."

So not only is that paragraph admitting that you are indeed paying (through mill levies, bond issues, property tax, etc) the high school education of someone here illegally, you should also kick in to make their college education financially on par with a resident of the state! What a bunch of suckers.

I don't care who endorsed it, who backs it, or what political party they're from. I've got a problem with "regardless of immigration status" for what should be obvious reasons. I'm definitely all for residents of Colorado to have some advantage over out-of-state applicants, but out-of-country? Illegally at that? I don't think so.

Lets say you have a cousin who wants to move here and go to CU or CSU, hey, that would be cool, they would at least have some family nearby. But their tuition is exorbitant being out-of-state, but not for someone here illegally. Does that seem the least bit fair? Basically we'd be subsidizing someone here illegally at the expense of U.S. citizens.

Here's an idea: go ahead and get all of those illegal immigrants applications who want to come to these schools we help fund in one way or another. Dump them on some new school run by "educators" like Mr. McCoy who want this subsidizing (on your dime) of said illegal immigrants, and they can have a new college just for them. It won't be CU or CSU caliber (in this case especially), but what do you want for half off while you don't pay in to the system that's helping to fund you?

In the meantime, their immigration status can be verified - one way or the other.

What is with this attitude of getting something for nothing? Why would Mr. McCoy (among others) want this? Without the "immigration status" part, I can understand, but with it? It's pandering, pure and simple. It's not about human rights or fair treatment - unless you're here illegally of course. Remember back to one of my podcasts where I said "White guilt does not equal racial tolerance"? This is about getting votes, nothing more, nothing less. And looky here, there's a Longmont City Council election coming up in November.

That's alright, you may forget. I'll make sure to remind you.

State capitol rally against generational theft

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 01:21:00 GMT

Since most of you probably had to work on Tuesday, or have what I like to call a "life", you probably missed the rally held at the State Capitol over the so-called stimulus package. Aka Porkulis, AKA Generational Theft Act, or whatever you prefer to call it.

I had the day off and had to be in the area anyway, so I went down there - along with another contributor to this site, much to our mutual surprise. Regardless of where you stand on this issue, thought you might like to know what this observer saw.

Traffic and parking was tough, so I got there a little late and right about when I thought it was going to start, it was over. It was a pretty decent sized crowd for the middle of a weekday. There were plenty of speakers, but each only spoke a very short period of time, and the wind was a serious factor in trying to hear the speakers. Iâm not sure if there were limitations on the time they had at that location, whether a permit was required, etc. Either way, I was surprised how quickly it ended.

But most of the fun occurred after the event was technically over. Lots of people stayed, milled around, and talked to each other. They had a real live pig, and also a roasted one. I thought the latter was fake, a prop, but it was real alright, and sure smelled good.

There were various factions representing all kinds of views, from parents concerned about their kids future, to 9/11 Truthers, and a small scattering of Obamacons. This one guy, who was wearing a soon to be copyright infringed t-shirt, just wasnât getting the attention he demanded. So he just yelled louder, to no one in particular. I got closer to see what was going on and saw someone trying to engage him, and witnessed pretty much what I expected: certain types yell questions and platitudes, even if youâre trying to actually have a dialogue with them. This guy would make some idiotic assertion; the person talking to him would answer, or try to, but without even listening to the response this clown was on to another talking point.

Like most sane people, they got sick of him and just walked away laughing and shaking their heads. So what did this guy resort to? Apparently he had nothing left in his bag of wits other than a crack on the other guysâ hair, or lack thereof. Yep, thatâs it, pretty sad. Then another speaker would flare up with some loud speech, people would look, or maybe gather around, then it would be over. The television stations and news agencies were all there, but I didnât see any of them cover the activities following the rally.

I saw people talking to elected representatives about issues that concern them, and not all were of one particular political persuasion either. I got to meet a couple of these State Senators (Renfroe and Mitchell), and apologized for mine (Shaffer). I also got to meet Jon Caldara of the Independence Institute and radio/TV fame, but forgot to thank him for allowing me to use some audio from his TV show for my podcast (the ReCreate â68 piece - Thanks!).

I also met syndicated columnist and FoxNews regular Michelle Malkin. I was standing near the Capitol steps and people were handing me their phones/cameras for me to take a picture of them with her. I was glad to do it, and then I got a picture of me taken with her (thanks for emailing it!). Never the shy one, I wanted to crack a joke for the picture, so I promised her I wouldnât âAlex Jonesâ her. (He chased her around at the DNC in Denver like a wailing, well, pig). I then took a self-guided tour of the Capitol building, very impressive.

Some thoughts on the event: Some of the speakers were a little too partisan and this isnât really a left/right, conservative/liberal, or Republican/Democrat issue. I was glad to see some speakers, most notably Mr. Caldara make that point. Your kids and mine, and theirs yet to be born, will be saddled by this for decades and some of those labels and parties may just be a memory by then. But this insanely large bill (and the one before it and the ones sure to follow) wonât be a memory; itâll be their reality â as sad as it may be.

Iâm not much of a rally attendee or marcher. I do my talking either here, on a podcast, at/to city council, or in the newspaper. I went to this event to say I was there on the day when my President signed away my future family members hopes of a life as good as mine and those before me. For you other parents (regardless of affiliation) who are equally concerned, even though I wasnât one of the ones yelling in the crowd, I was there for you, too.

Does that mean I have a better answer or alternative? No. But at least I would hope my representatives (this includes you Congresswoman Markey, and Senators Udall and Bennet) would do us the favor of actually reading a bill of this magnitude before signing it. These three clearly did not do that and I consider this a dereliction of their duty. This proves they are just rubber-stamping political hacks. Thanks for nothing. No, thanks for worse than nothing.

You always hope your kids will do better than yourself, sort of improve on the current model. Now those hopes have been handcuffed. And while I canât understand how some people are thrilled that the government is handing out billions (trillions with interest) and think itâs free money. Itâs not free, it has to be paid back, or theyâll just put the money printing press on hyperdrive followed by hyperinflation. Either way, itâs tying future generationsâ hands behind their back as they hope to try to strike out on their own.

Theyâll likely strike out alright, but not the good kind.

You can see pictures of this event and more at the following Longmont Examiner page: Locals attend Anti-Pork Roast on Capitol steps

Hopenchangeâ¢, Longmont style

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 07:06:00 GMT

Just when you thought youâd had enough to lose your lunch on, Longmont has itâs own helping of Hopenchangeâ. Granted, itâs not nearly as eloquent as the real thing, but witness the gushing (and reading with the hands) of our cityâs version of President Obamaâs inaugural speech, courtesy of councilmember (and rumored Mayoral candidate) Sean McCoy.

Were you moved? Or was that just part of your digested food shifting around? But Mr. McCoy is right in some respects; some change is needed here closer to home. He asked, via Obamaâs speech, whether our government works. The local version doesnât seem to be working so well. He also mentioned âdoes it help people find jobsâ? This coming from one of the most anti-business, anti-growth councils, where open fields (aka âgreen fieldsâ) donât pay building permit fees or much in the way of property taxes. All things to keep in mind as services are cut, wages are frozen, and city workers laid off.

âAnd those of us who manage the public dollarsâ(pause)âwill be held to accountâ, you got that right. I wouldâve paused too at that point given this councilâs propensity for procrastination when it comes to making serious decisions, chickenâs not withstanding. If this council wants to âput people at easeâ, as Mr. McCoy put it, how about putting their political career where their mouth is and make some kind of pledge of self term limiting or stepping down for their performance, or lack thereof? I know, not likely.

The other form of Hopenchangeâ thatâs getting a little old is the weekly gloating about âserviceâ. Doing things for charity or good causes loses some of its luster when you go around bragging about it. Most people I know who donate food, clothes, money, and time do it because they want to, and donât have to be forced or reminded to by a group of people. They also donât wear it like a tiara in public, âhey, look what I did, did you?â Iâm not sure what the mindset is here, do they think itâs a small minority of people who give, in whatever form that is? Do they think because they maybe donât give year-round as much as they should, the rest of us are like that, or feel some guilt?

Ironically, these are the same types who relentlessly tear into organizations that donate on a level that dwarfs their own once in a decade events â oh, like Lifebridge. The only time I heard someone from Lifebridge go through the long list of community services they provide was when one of these other people asked, in their usual snotty way. Otherwise, Lifebridge, like the majority of people, donât need a âcall to serviceâ to serve. They just do it, and they donât constantly remind everyone about it.

Probable hiatus

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 00:39:00 GMT

Hello faithful readers and listeners.
I've recently been offered an opportunity to write once again for Examiner.Com, but this time in a different, and larger, capacity. I am now officially the Denver Aviation Communities Examiner.

I was in the original class of Examiners when they began, and was the Longmont Examiner until handing that off to Brigette, who's been doing a bang-up job at it. Now I've been asked back to write on a larger scale on a topic that is near and dear to me: Aviation.

Before politics, before hockey, before snowboarding, before video games (with the possible exception of Pong), before playing music, before just about any other hobby or interest (with the other possible exception of baseball), there was aviation. While I have been a pilot longer (since age 17) than an Air Traffic Controller (since age 20), I've done the latter more day in and day out for over 23 years. Aviation, in one form or another, has been part of my daily life for over 35 years. It's something I know a little something about and have a passion for. This opportunity would be a mistake to pass on.

Depending on how much time is required to meet the demands of this position (a paid one at that), my Longmont related blogging and podcasting may take a back seat and go on hiatus. This was not a decision I came to easily or quickly, and if it doesn't work out, things can go back to how they were. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

So I hope you follow along on this next leg of my writing journey. If you have the slightest interest in aviation you may enjoy it. The link is:
http://www.examiner.com/x-2215-Denver-Aviation-Community-Examiner
and you can always follow Brigette's Longmont related stories at
http://www.examiner.com/x-517-Longmont-Examiner

Thanks, Chris

"Would You Please Recall The Mayor?"

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 08:14:00 GMT

From time to time, Longmont City Councilmembers other than the Mayor get their chance at being Acting Mayor. Karen Benker has done it a couple of times, once was fine, the other was a little shaky. At the December 16 council meeting, Gabe Santos got a shot at it and he uttered what's sure to be the line of the year. He asked that Mayor Lange and Mayor Pro-Tem Benker be recalled!

I'm a fan of getting right to the point, no mixing of words. But this is unprecedented! Has Chicago-style politics (that would include the Illinois governorship) come to Longmont? No, it was just a faux pas when Mr. Santos was asking that these two members be un-sequestered from a Longmont Area Economic Council (LAEC) discussion, and was pretty funny (or extreme hubris! I'll go with the former)

Speaking of the LAEC, why do I get the feeling that some on council are still unsure of what this organization does? Councilmembers McCoy and Levison asked questions that made it appear theyâre not totally familiar with their mission. I heard a couple "is that correct", followed by "no, it's not", and financial numbers that werenât too close to reality, like membership fees.

What I really was getting a kick out of, and shocked at the amount of restraint LAEC President John Cody showed, was the added demands put on the LAEC by the same people who wanted to cut it fairly severely, especially Ms. Levison, who made the most requests and also wanted the harshest cuts. To his credit, Mr. McCoy was the one earlier who found $30,000 from other funds to cover some of Ms. Levison's cuts in LAEC, and he did move the issue forward at this meeting after getting his questions answered.

But some of the points and questions were a bit much, like the LAEC needs to find jobs for the laid off people at the turkey plant, and find them here in Longmont. Not a whole lot of turkey plants in the area. And a recurring theme from some on council, but to a much greater degree from their fellow travelers, is this non-stop attack on former administrations to the point of ridiculous. Case in point here was towards former Mayor Leona Stoecker coming from Mr. McCoy. It sounded petty and vindictive, and it was also clear he didn't know exactly what she was doing (which sounds like a positive thing for the city) and that it wasn't coming from the LAEC contract. No "double dipping" like he was accusing.

The whole Mall issue, which took up a couple of hours, I'll leave for later. But there were a couple of other interesting things that I'd like to take a couple quick hits at: Karen Benker wants a tax on Internet sales. I only bring this up as it's ironic that she was also pushing, and succeeded, at drastically cutting the credit local businesses get for the paperwork needed to actually report those collected taxes.

The city's Use Tax projections are a bit thin, like off by a third! Guess what makes up a big chunk of Use Taxes - building permits. Can anyone say Lifebridge Union Development? (say Firestone as you do). Or how about the Mall for that matter, and the stalling thatâs lead to no building activity there.

Finally, the board appointments seemed to go a little smoother than usual, except for a little argument between Mr. Santos and Mr. McCoy, as the latter started straying from the rules council agreed to. It also looked like council, once again, allowed a late applicant (late as in applied at the council meeting) to be considered and appointed.

In other cases it was a new applicant perhaps not familiar with the rules and deadlines (what's the point of those anyway, right?). In this case, it was someone already on the board they were applying for completely unaware of the vacancy! Stunning. Surprised this applicant wasn't passed over out of the obvious ineptitude. Then again, I'm not.

December 15, 2008 Show

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 06:00:00 GMT

LONGMONT ADVOCATE SHOW NOTES
December 15, 2008 Show

Holiday Music Extravaganza

Blue Christmas by Wiser Time
Oh Holy Night by Dusty Hughes
We Three Kings by Admiral Twin
Away In A Manger by The Three Not So Wise Men
Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas by
Winzenried aka Hollywood Drunks
Christmas Eve In The Trailer Park by Bill Kahler
Greensleeves by Lee Harris & The Tijuana Trumpets
Jingle Bells by Skid Row
Silent Night by Darrell Smith
A Pirate Christmas by Tom Smith

Runtime: 29:11

Contact info:
www.longmontadvocate.com
longmontadvocate.blogspot.com
chris@longmontadvocate.com
www.cafepress.com/longmontadvocat
www.votelongmont.org
www.facethestate.com/blogwrangler
http://www.examiner.com/x-517-Longmont-Examiner
Skype ID: longmontadvocate
message/fax: (206)309-7132
www.youtube.com/longmontadvocate
www.myspace.com/longmontadvocate
Subscribe on iTunes - search for Longmont in Podcasts

Copyright 2008 Longmont Advocate LLC - Before using this sound
recording for anything other than its intended use (listening),
read the following: DISCLAIMER: Music used in the sound recording
("Podcast") are the property of the original artist, and all rights
to these works, including lyrics and music, are the property of the artist.
This music is used in compliance with the terms of use with Podsafe Music
Network(music.podshow.com), and may not be used in any way by third parties
contrary to those terms. All other works are protected by the Creative
Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States
License for Longmont Advocate (Podcast, Website content, and Blog).
These works are the property of Longmont Advocate LLC. You may: share,
copy, distribute, display, and perform the work involved with this site.
But you must attribute the work in a manner specified by the author or
licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your
use of the work). You may not: use this work for commercial purposes,
alter, transform, or build upon this work.

December 8, 2008 Show

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Mon, 8 Dec 2008 06:00:00 GMT

LONGMONT ADVOCATE SHOW NOTES
December 8, 2008 Show

Blue Christmas by Wiser Time

Longmont Examiner's "Longmont Lights" about
Roosevelt Park Ice Rink

City Council Public Invited To Be Heard
First speaker complains about "vulgar" sign
George Marxmiller talks about lawsuit against city
I speak about campaign limits

City Council Watch
Election Task Force discuss its work with
City Council with specific comments by
Doug Brown, Chris Colelli and councilmembers

Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas by
Winzenried aka Hollywood Drunks

Runtime: 39:05

Contact info:
www.longmontadvocate.com
longmontadvocate.blogspot.com
chris@longmontadvocate.com
www.cafepress.com/longmontadvocat
www.votelongmont.org
www.facethestate.com/blogwrangler
http://www.examiner.com/x-517-Longmont-Examiner
Skype ID: longmontadvocate
message/fax: (206)309-7132
www.youtube.com/longmontadvocate
www.myspace.com/longmontadvocate
Subscribe on iTunes - search for Longmont in Podcasts

Copyright 2008 Longmont Advocate LLC - Before using this sound
recording for anything other than its intended use (listening),
read the following: DISCLAIMER: Music used in the sound recording
("Podcast") are the property of the original artist, and all rights
to these works, including lyrics and music, are the property of the artist.
This music is used in compliance with the terms of use with Podsafe Music
Network(music.podshow.com), and may not be used in any way by third parties
contrary to those terms. All other works are protected by the Creative
Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States
License for Longmont Advocate (Podcast, Website content, and Blog).
These works are the property of Longmont Advocate LLC. You may: share,
copy, distribute, display, and perform the work involved with this site.
But you must attribute the work in a manner specified by the author or
licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your
use of the work). You may not: use this work for commercial purposes,
alter, transform, or build upon this work.

"Complete Waste Of Time"

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Wed, 3 Dec 2008 19:11:00 GMT

At the December 2 Longmont City Council Meeting, the topic that took up most of the night was the recommendations from the Election Task Force. What none of you saw on television, and many attending possibly missed was the anger, and rightly so, from some on the task force at the councils vote. The comments " complete waste of time" and " six months for nothing" were heard.

When I talked to some of them after the meeting, I told them they must've seen this coming. In my comments to council I was concerned that the minority opinion of the task force would become the majority vote on council. And it did.

Forget for a minute your opinion on contribution limits, which was the main issue at the council meeting. This group was formed to do a job. There were diverse opinions and they worked hard since May. They met every other week through July, then once a week after that. I could only attend one of the earlier meetings, but it was obvious they had their work cut out for them.

Lots of people said negative things about this task force at Public Invited To Be Heard, but how many of them showed up at any of these meetings? My problem isn't so much the dollar amounts, it's the discarding of the well studied and organized majority opinion and all the work this task force did over the last several months.

Task force members Doug Brown and Chris Colelli made some of the best arguments and comments of how the group came to the conclusions it did, and I'll probably pull some of their audio for my next podcast. The warnings were that if you mess with one part of their work, it will have ramifications on other parts. And that lower amounts could lead to legal challenges. These pleas were ignored.

Also ignored were some of the numbers from the city's satisfaction survey. While people did vote in favor of the idea of contribution limits, what was more interesting were the limits they voted for. Combining all limits (individual, group, and in-kind) 48.6% of those surveyed voted for between $500 to No Limit on campaign contributions.

So where is council getting this idea that contributions should be $100 or $200 like many of them said? Not from the task force, not from the survey, so where?I'm guessing from some of their unelected vocal supporters. Ironically, these same people (and councilmembers for that matter) complain about past councils being owned and ran from some shady influences in town. How is this any different? Just because you now agree with it, does that make it alright?

December 1, 2008 Show

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Mon, 1 Dec 2008 21:45:00 GMT

LONGMONT ADVOCATE SHOW NOTES
December 1, 2008 Show

Silent Night by Mano Reza

City Council Watch
Every Little Thing by Modern Science

Election Task Force makes recommendations
to City Council

Greensleeves by Tequila Mockingbirds

Runtime: 36:52

Contact info:
www.longmontadvocate.com
longmontadvocate.blogspot.com
chris@longmontadvocate.com
www.cafepress.com/longmontadvocat
www.votelongmont.org
www.facethestate.com/blogwrangler
http://www.examiner.com/x-517-Longmont-Examiner
Skype ID: longmontadvocate
message/fax: (206)309-7132
www.youtube.com/longmontadvocate
www.myspace.com/longmontadvocate
Subscribe on iTunes - search for Longmont in Podcasts

Copyright 2008 Longmont Advocate LLC - Before using this sound
recording for anything other than its intended use (listening),
read the following: DISCLAIMER: Music used in the sound recording
("Podcast") are the property of the original artist, and all rights
to these works, including lyrics and music, are the property of the artist.
This music is used in compliance with the terms of use with Podsafe Music
Network(music.podshow.com), and may not be used in any way by third parties
contrary to those terms. All other works are protected by the Creative
Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States
License for Longmont Advocate (Podcast, Website content, and Blog).
These works are the property of Longmont Advocate LLC. You may: share,
copy, distribute, display, and perform the work involved with this site.
But you must attribute the work in a manner specified by the author or
licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your
use of the work). You may not: use this work for commercial purposes,
alter, transform, or build upon this work.

November 24, 2008 Show

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 21:00:00 GMT

LONGMONT ADVOCATE SHOW NOTES
November 24, 2008 Show

I'm The One, Pick Me by Modern Science

Longmont Times-Call staffers as valets?
by Brigette/Longmont Examiner

City Council Watch
Every Little Thing by Modern Science

Times-Call City Council job poll
"A year later, community still split over City Council"
by Rachel Carter/Longmont Times-Call

"The good and the bad" from Longmont Times-Call
Comments by councilmembers and my personal
opinion of each member

The End by Polaradio

Runtime: 37:17

Contact info:
www.longmontadvocate.com
longmontadvocate.blogspot.com
chris@longmontadvocate.com
www.cafepress.com/longmontadvocat
www.votelongmont.org
www.facethestate.com/blogwrangler
http://www.examiner.com/x-517-Longmont-Examiner
Skype ID: longmontadvocate
message/fax: (206)309-7132
www.youtube.com/longmontadvocate
www.myspace.com/longmontadvocate
Subscribe on iTunes - search for Longmont in Podcasts

Copyright 2008 Longmont Advocate LLC - Before using this sound
recording for anything other than its intended use (listening),
read the following: DISCLAIMER: Music used in the sound recording
("Podcast") are the property of the original artist, and all rights
to these works, including lyrics and music, are the property of the artist.
This music is used in compliance with the terms of use with Podsafe Music
Network(music.podshow.com), and may not be used in any way by third parties
contrary to those terms. All other works are protected by the Creative
Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States
License for Longmont Advocate (Podcast, Website content, and Blog).
These works are the property of Longmont Advocate LLC. You may: share,
copy, distribute, display, and perform the work involved with this site.
But you must attribute the work in a manner specified by the author or
licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your
use of the work). You may not: use this work for commercial purposes,
alter, transform, or build upon this work.

November 17, 2008 Show

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:00:00 GMT

LONGMONT ADVOCATE SHOW NOTES
November 17, 2008 Show
Birthday Bash Music Show

Even though it's my birthday, here's a gift of
music from the bands I've discovered since the
shows inception in April. This is a mix of hard
rock, comedy, pop rock, alternative, religious,
jazz/groove, and ballads. I've met some of these
artists, or have had contact with nearly all of
them via email. Most are based in Colorado,
some right here in Longmont. They are all worth
a listen, so visit their Podsafe Music Network links
for more information on each artist.

Enjoy!

Fuzz by Lords of Fuzz
Old People by Odd Austin Aeschliman (dedicated to Wade Lichti)
Moment of Truth by Polaradio
Hallelujah by 38 Acres
Norman Fell by Ebeneezer
The Weather Machine by Signal To Noise
Annabelle by David McMillin
Oxygen by Dusty Hughes
The Ballad of Jon Turner by Jeff Caylor
Drivin' by Mojomama
Even by Wiser Time
This Time by Polaradio
Every Little Thing by Modern Science

Runtime: 45:37

Contact info:
www.longmontadvocate.com
longmontadvocate.blogspot.com
chris@longmontadvocate.com
www.cafepress.com/longmontadvocat
www.votelongmont.org
www.facethestate.com/blogwrangler
http://www.examiner.com/x-517-Longmont-Examiner
Skype ID: longmontadvocate
message/fax: (206)309-7132
www.youtube.com/longmontadvocate
www.myspace.com/longmontadvocate
Subscribe on iTunes - search for Longmont in Podcasts

Copyright 2008 Longmont Advocate LLC - Before using this sound
recording for anything other than its intended use (listening),
read the following: DISCLAIMER: Music used in the sound recording
("Podcast") are the property of the original artist, and all rights
to these works, including lyrics and music, are the property of the artist.
This music is used in compliance with the terms of use with Podsafe Music
Network(music.podshow.com), and may not be used in any way by third parties
contrary to those terms. All other works are protected by the Creative
Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States
License for Longmont Advocate (Podcast, Website content, and Blog).
These works are the property of Longmont Advocate LLC. You may: share,
copy, distribute, display, and perform the work involved with this site.
But you must attribute the work in a manner specified by the author or
licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your
use of the work). You may not: use this work for commercial purposes,
alter, transform, or build upon this work.

November 10, 2008 Show

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:00:00 GMT

LONGMONT ADVOCATE SHOW NOTES
November 10, 2008 Show

Norman Fell by Ebeneezer www.ebeneezerband.com
who will have a show at Dickens Opera House
in Longmont Sat Nov 15 9pm

City Council Watch
Every Little Thing by Modern Science

City Council: A stunning lack of understanding
by Tony Kindlespire - Longmont Times-Call

Skyline High School's amazing production of
"Joseph & The Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat"
3 song medley from opening night

The Man From Sarcastica by Ebeneezer

Runtime: 17:02

Contact info:
www.longmontadvocate.com
longmontadvocate.blogspot.com
chris@longmontadvocate.com
www.cafepress.com/longmontadvocat
www.votelongmont.org
www.facethestate.com/blogwrangler
http://www.examiner.com/x-517-Longmont-Examiner
Skype ID: longmontadvocate
message/fax: (206)309-7132
www.youtube.com/longmontadvocate
www.myspace.com/longmontadvocate
Subscribe on iTunes - search for Longmont in Podcasts

Copyright 2008 Longmont Advocate LLC - Before using this sound
recording for anything other than its intended use (listening),
read the following: DISCLAIMER: Music used in the sound recording
("Podcast") are the property of the original artist, and all rights
to these works, including lyrics and music, are the property of the artist.
This music is used in compliance with the terms of use with Podsafe Music
Network(music.podshow.com), and may not be used in any way by third parties
contrary to those terms. All other works are protected by the Creative
Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States
License for Longmont Advocate (Podcast, Website content, and Blog).
These works are the property of Longmont Advocate LLC. You may: share,
copy, distribute, display, and perform the work involved with this site.
But you must attribute the work in a manner specified by the author or
licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your
use of the work). You may not: use this work for commercial purposes,
alter, transform, or build upon this work.

Examiner straw poll for Longmont, Colorado

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Wed, 5 Nov 2008 19:58:00 GMT

(from Brigette, the Longmont Examiner)
Examiners from major cities across the country conducted a straw poll of voters to better understand their habits leading up to Election Day. Respondents were randomly selected to participate and asked a series of questions listed below.

Question 1: Have you been polled before today on election issues?

Â Results of the Examiner nationwide straw poll

Yes	No
5	2

Question 2: On Election Day, did you vote for the same candidates that you intended to vote for prior to arriving at the polling location?

Yes	No
7	0

(Out of 17 people polled, there were 10 people who had no response)

Question 3: What was the single most important issue to you in this election that affected how you voted?

Abortion. Future of the country. The honesty , integrity and transparency of the candidate. In general I would have to say it was the Economy. On a local level it was education (Mill levy and Bond ). Whether or not the candidate was supportive of a women's right to choose. Conservative family values for people and free enterprise capitalism for business and the economy. Fear of Obama.

SUMMARY: As a participant in the election process on election day as well as one of the organizers for Vote! Longmont, I observed that the majority of people in this neighborhood district were prepared and knowledgeable of the issues. In addition to the above straw poll, I was informed that 80% of voters in my neighborhood district early voted or requested mail in ballots and wait times in at least two of the districts were minimal. There were also many first time voters, as well as their proud and encouraging mothers. Families showed up to vote together and if not, they made sure to check the poll book to see that their brothers, husbands, and wives had voted. There were also many young children observing their parents voting.

Due to the high turnout and newly registered voters, there was an increase in provisional ballots that were cast. In addition to that, the clerk and recorder's office made an eleventh hour decision to accept mail in ballots at polling locations in an effort to assist voters. The clerks office is working diligently to get all those votes counted, read more HERE about how it's going.

Conversations with others included reports of transportation provided to get voters to the polls and people knocking on doors on election day to remind voters that they have not voted. Frequently throughout the day the poll watchers outnumbered the voters at one polling location. Problems at two precincts I observed were minimal with election officials and voters alike who were tirelessly patient and friendly.

Too bad the nastiest of this election campaign couldn't have gone as smoothly, but the "can-do" attitude won't expire on election day and it still remains here in Longmont.

2008 Presidential Prediction

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Tue, 4 Nov 2008 02:32:00 GMT

Here's one of those posts I'll either want to forget about if it's way off, or republish over and over again. Lots of other sites are making their final predictions for the Presidential race, so here's mine:

Barack Obama 291

John McCain 247

RealClearPolitics has it at Obama 338 / McCain 200, but there are a couple of states we disagree about: Florida and Ohio, which RCP gives to Obama.

McCain has been pushing very hard for Pennsylvania, and without Virginia, it's his only hope. But even with Pennsylvania in my scenario he'd still end up 2 Electoral College votes short (268-270) and would need a state somewhere else. I'm not totally convinced Nevada and Colorado are lost to McCain, and some sites think Iowa and Minnesota are still in play. I don't.

All eyes will be on the first polls to close, which include Virginia, and within an hour followed by Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida. How those go will decide if it will be a long night or not.

Show Schedule & Site Updates

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Tue, 4 Nov 2008 00:06:00 GMT

Here is a schedule of upcoming podcasts and Longmont City Council meetings for the month of November.

November 3 - NO PODCAST

November 4 - Election Day - Abbreviated Longmont City Council meeting 5p-7p

November 10 - Podcast covering election results

November 11 - Veterans Day - Longmont City Council meeting CANCELLED

November 17 - NO PODCAST

November 18 - Longmont City Council Regular Session

November 24 - Podcast covering 11/18 and upcoming 11/25 council meetings

November 25 - Longmont City Council Regular Session

In the meantime, if you haven't voted already, VOTE! Visit www.votelongmont.org for candidate and issue information.

Previous podcasts and blog entries can be found at www.longmontadvocate.com, where there has been a slight change. Instead of the former "launching pad", it now goes directly to the Blogger page http://longmontadvocate.blogspot.com where you can find all the same features and links.

An upcoming addition to the site and feed is entries from Brigette, the Longmont Examiner. Something else of interest is a new podcaster in town, Melissa with Voice of Longmont, so give her a listen as well.

The best way to get this blog/podcast is through automatic email delivery. Go to www.longmontadvocate.com and in the upper right there is a form to enter your email address (don't forget to respond to the email verification) and FeedBurner will send you whatever is posted. There is also a way to subscribe via RSS feed or whatever delivery method you prefer on that page.

Election Night Scoresheet

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 05:04:00 GMT

Like I've said before, I enjoy predicting elections, and usually do fairly well at it. This one though? The variables involved and combinations of possibilities are nearly too mind boggling to nail it down one way or the other. I may tweak a few numbers here and there right up to Election Day, but for now I see more combinations of Electoral College Votes (ECV's) for Obama to reach the magic number of 270 than for McCain. My initial guess is for Obama to end up with either worst case 273 or best case 311 ECV's.

But how and when will we know? The networks are already saying they won't be in any great rush to declare a winner. They are also gun-shy over relying too much on their exit polls, which in 2004 gave John Kerry false hopes during the afternoon on Election Day. The networks also don't want people tuning out too early, so they'll likely drag this out as long as possible. In Colorado's case, we might not have a clear vote count until after midnight, if we're lucky. So, again, what's the best way to gauge what's going on?

I put together a scoresheet of when each state's polls close, how many ECV's they are worth, and indicated in bold the important ones to watch. Some states straddle more than one time zone, but the times given (all Mountain Standard Time) are usually when each given state concludes the majority of its voting. So, here they are.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

5:00pm VT(3) / VA (13) / SC (8) / GA (15) / KY (8) / IN (11)

5:30pm NC (15) / WV (5) / OH (20)

6:00pm ME (4) / MA (12) / NH (4) / CT (7) / NJ (15) / PA (21) / DE (3) / MD (10) / DC (3) / FL (27) / TN (11) / AL (9) / MS (6) / IL (21) / MO (11) / OK (7) / 6:30pm AR (6)

7:00pm KS (6) / MI (17) / NY (31) / RI (4) / WI (10) / LA (9) / MN (10) / TX (34) / NE (5) / SD (3) / NM (5) / CO (9) / WY (3) / AZ (10)

8:00pm ND (3) / IA (7) / MT (3) / UT (5) / NV (5)

9:00pm CA (55) / ID (4) / WA (11) / OR (7) / HI (4) / 10:00pm AK (3)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

How crucial states go between 5pm and 6pm will pretty much decide who the winner is, that is IF the networks show the tallies in a timely manner. If Obama wins VA and OH, it's pretty much over for McCain. If these are split or if McCain wins both, it's going to be a long night, and the next two important states to watch will be NH and PA. Considering the idea of a split (or else why even go any further in this discussion?), if McCain were to win OH, then that might point to strength in PA, especially western and central PA. If McCain were to win NH, that would indicate weakness for Obama in some of the supposedly locked up blue states down the line. I tend to think McCain would win neither of these states.

So if it's still a race by the time CO's polls close, it then all comes down to three states: CO, NM, and NV. There's little doubt that Obama will win the west coast and HI, equaling 77 ECV's. In just about any scenario, these will be the states that put Obama up over 270 ECV's. If Obama hasn't reached 192 ECV's before the west coast polls close, he wonât reach 269 (a 269-269 tie would go to Obama through the House of Representatives).

And here is where the dreaded slow counting expected for Colorado comes in, if it comes to this scenario. If either candidate is 9 shy of 270, Colorado will be under the microscope and attorneys will be flocking to our state in record numbers, a few per county, and we may not know the final results for a day or two.

So, I hope that helps you in weaving through the multimedia nightmare that might be awaiting us on Election Night. The eventual winner may not appear that way (based on ECV's) for quite a while, but the keys to watch for above should give you a clue of how it's going along the way.

October 27, 2008 Show

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 00:00:00 GMT

LONGMONT ADVOCATE SHOW NOTES
October 27, 2008 Show

Even by Wiser Time

Every Little Thing by Modern Science

"City Council Rules (Of Procedure)" with
contradictory city council positions and comments

Times-Call articles and editorials about
Executive Sessions and the Longmont Area Economic
Council (LAEC)

Audio from the 10/14 and 10/21 City Council sessions
regarding the above, with arguments and complaining

Karen Benker makes right call on use of Public Safety Tax

"Longmont Examiner: SVVSD student rally draws 150+"
read by the Longmont Examiner herself!

The End by Polaradio

Runtime: 36:20

Contact info:
www.longmontadvocate.com
longmontadvocate.blogspot.com
chris@longmontadvocate.com
www.cafepress.com/longmontadvocat
www.votelongmont.org
www.facethestate.com/blogwrangler
http://www.examiner.com/x-517-Longmont-Examiner
Skype ID: longmontadvocate
message/fax: (206)309-7132
www.youtube.com/longmontadvocate
www.myspace.com/longmontadvocate
Subscribe on iTunes - search for Longmont in Podcasts

Copyright 2008 Longmont Advocate LLC - Before using this sound
recording for anything other than its intended use (listening),
read the following: DISCLAIMER: Music used in the sound recording
("Podcast") are the property of the original artist, and all rights
to these works, including lyrics and music, are the property of the artist.
This music is used in compliance with the terms of use with Podsafe Music
Network(music.podshow.com), and may not be used in any way by third parties
contrary to those terms. All other works are protected by the Creative
Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States
License for Longmont Advocate (Podcast, Website content, and Blog).
These works are the property of Longmont Advocate LLC. You may: share,
copy, distribute, display, and perform the work involved with this site.
But you must attribute the work in a manner specified by the author or
licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your
use of the work). You may not: use this work for commercial purposes,
alter, transform, or build upon this work.

City Council Rules! (Of Procedure)

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 07:35:00 GMT

In yet another contentious Longmont City Council meeting on October 21, there was one bit of irony I couldn't let slip by. Councilmember Sarah Levison brought up City Council RULE 19: RECONSIDERATION in opposition to a motion Gabe Santos made which would effectively reverse a motion she made the previous week.

The rule reads: After the decision on any question, any member who voted with the prevailing side may move to reconsider the decision at the same meeting or at the next meeting at which Rule 25 permits final or official action on the subject question. Rule 25 spells out when there will be meetings, whether they're regular or study session, and public postings of these meetings and their agendas.

At the September 23 regular session meeting, City Manager Gordon Pedrow told council they had a decision to make about a meeting on November 4 (Election Day) or November 11 (Veterans Day). Council voted to have an early and abbreviated meeting on November 4. The minutes for that meeting aren't available yet, and Mayor Lange said it passed but didn't say if it was unanimous or not. Ms. Levison said "I do not want to meet on Veterans Day", so it's assumed she voted for November 4. So she may have well voted with the "prevailing side", as Rule 19 specifies.

But, on October 14, Ms. Levison brought this issue up again and tried to get council to reconsider having a meeting on Veterans Day, stating that she didn't know that not having it then meant having it Thanksgiving week. Two problems with this: first, Mr. Pedrow stated during his comments on September 23 as they were considering this, that this indeed would mean a meeting during "Thanksgiving week". Secondly, when she brought it up for reconsideration, it wasn't during the same meeting or even the next meeting. Did she violate the very rule she was trying to use for her own purposes?

Granted, it may be debatable that a meeting date is a final or official action. But since this decision, it has been posted on subsequent agendas that the November 11 meeting has been cancelled. Either way, Ms. Levison went back on her earlier statement, and I could not find a single councilmember who spoke in favor of meeting on Veterans Day. So why bring it back up for reconsideration?

What Mr. Santos wanted reconsideration of was a questionable vote last week where two councilmembers abstained from voting. City Attorney Clay Douglas made an on-the-spot decision involving this issue, which he now seems to be reversing, which changes everything and should make that earlier vote invalid. So, in reality, this is not a reconsideration at all. It's a clarification and correction.

This is an undecided item and might get resolved behind closed doors next week at yet another Executive Session. By Mr. Santo's count, this should be the 21st of these types of "closed to the public" meetings.

That must be a record, and not one to be proud of. The new councilmembers promised a more open and accessible governing body when they ran for election. This staggering amount of closed door meetings proves, beyond any doubt, the contrary.

Biden's a walking "Daisy" ad

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:47:00 GMT

Back in 1964 in the presidential race of Democratic President Lyndon Johnson and Republican Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, there was a television advertisement put out by the Johnson campaign called the "Daisy" ad. It signaled the beginning of what today we call negative advertising, and still remains one of the most controversial political advertisements ever made. It proved negative ad campaigns worked, and this one was only aired once. Pandora's Box was forever opened that day on this subject, and like today, I guess the ends justified the means

The point of the ad was to scare voters about Senator Goldwater, and his comments about using nuclear weapons in Vietnam, a war the Kennedy/Johnson administrations started. So on top of Vietnam, we can also thank these people and their party for the negative ads everyone seems to complain about these days.

Well, someone in this race has made a case that electing Democratic Illinois Senator Barack Obama for President could have similar consequences. "Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John KennedyâRemember I said it standing here. If you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. And he's gonna have to make some really tough -- I don't know what the decision's gonna be, but I promise you it will occur. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it's gonna happen."

Whatâs "gonna happen"?

Oh, by the way, this is not a negative ad from the Republican Party, this is Democratic Vice-Presidential Candidate Joe Biden, all but assuring us we're going to face near imminent attack, or something, if his running mate wins! He didn't stop there: "I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originateâAnd he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're rightâgird your loins."

I have problems with those that vote strictly for reasons of personal gain, and I know some that are doing that very thing, which is their right. And while I can make the best out of just about any situation, it's not inconceivable that I'd personally benefit from higher pay (but hopefully not high enough to hit Obama's idea of "rich"), an improved collective bargaining contract, and possibly a bloated and very nice retirement deal with an Obama presidency. Howâs that? Politicians always look out for their own pay, health benefits, and retirement plans, and when they do, some of us reap those rewards. That doesn't make it right though.

But it's hard to find a silver lining on a promised and guaranteed attack or crisis. At first I thought he meant a financial crisis requiring tough and uncomfortable decisions affecting us all, like a full fledge Depression. But he didn't mean that at all, he meant something big, 9/11 big. Otherwise, why would he throw in the line about girding our loins, and how it's not going to be apparent that the decisions President Obama will make are "right" initially? Is that admitting error before the fact? Some kind of pre-emptive lowering of the bar?

Talk about instilling confidence. And people make fun of Sarah Palin? This Biden is a walking, talking gaffe-o-matic. Let's just hope this prediction of his, no matter who wins, is just another one of his many insertions of foot in mouth.

October 20, 2008 Show

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 23:00:00 GMT

LONGMONT ADVOCATE SHOW NOTES
October 20, 2008 Show

Oxygen by Dusty Hughes

Longmont 2A - Collective bargaining of
police and fire employees
Times-Call Editorial rebuttal by Mike Violette/CO FOP
www.longmontpolice.com

Anti-2A statement by Stephanie Baum
of political advocacy group Longmont Watch
www.longmontwatch.com

"Brandon Shaffer: Not a voter's best friend"

City Council Watch
October 14 meeting referred to as
"Laughing Stock of the Community"
by Councilmember Mary Blue

Vote early to avoid headaches

The End by Polaradio

Runtime: 38:50

Contact info:
www.longmontadvocate.com
longmontadvocate.blogspot.com
chris@longmontadvocate.com
www.cafepress.com/longmontadvocat
www.votelongmont.org
www.facethestate.com/blogwrangler
http://www.examiner.com/x-517-Longmont-Examiner
Skype ID: longmontadvocate
message/fax: (206)309-7132
www.youtube.com/longmontadvocate
www.myspace.com/longmontadvocate
Subscribe on iTunes - search for Longmont in Podcasts

Copyright 2008 Longmont Advocate LLC - Before using this sound
recording for anything other than its intended use (listening),
read the following: DISCLAIMER: Music used in the sound recording
("Podcast") are the property of the original artist, and all rights
to these works, including lyrics and music, are the property of the artist.
This music is used in compliance with the terms of use with Podsafe Music
Network(music.podshow.com), and may not be used in any way by third parties
contrary to those terms. All other works are protected by the Creative
Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States
License for Longmont Advocate (Podcast, Website content, and Blog).
These works are the property of Longmont Advocate LLC. You may: share,
copy, distribute, display, and perform the work involved with this site.
But you must attribute the work in a manner specified by the author or
licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your
use of the work). You may not: use this work for commercial purposes,
alter, transform, or build upon this work.

"Laughing Stock of the Community"

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 06:25:00 GMT

While I was trying to pull together some audio for my next podcast, (which originally was going to be completely devoted to the Police/Firefighter bargaining issue, and hopefully still will be), I ended up with way more sound than I can use in one show just from the most recent Longmont City Council meeting of October 14, 2008.

Of course the line of the night, and if you suffer through the entire meeting you will surely agree, was Councilmember Mary Blue's statement "Weâre already the laughing stock of the community, we just want to compound it". And this was before most of the ridiculous and tedious antics that made this meeting go nearly until midnight. Ms. Blue couldn't have been more correct. But I'll add, it isn't all of council that is a laughing stock, and some of that stock resides in the crowd that often attends and makes fools out of themselves in Public Invited to Be Heard.

Ms. Blue's main point was the haphazard way in which this current council goes about the business it tries to conduct in chambers. As I predicted, they are behind and floundering on the current budget, and it doesn't help when councilmembers stray from the agenda and bring up all kinds of motions that go nowhere and waste time. Best example in the last couple of meetings is Councilmember Sarah Levison. I've never seen so many motions die due to no second, or voted down when a second actually occurs.

Nearly every one of these pointless motions could be a story or Times-Call article in themselves. For instance, anyone remember how council voted down having a meeting on November 11^th, Veterans Day, well, because it's a holiday and the whole veteran thing? At a late hour, Ms. Levison tried to revive this and sneak it into a part of the Consent Agenda. Sean McCoy tried to second it, but when councilmembers Karen Benker and Mary Blue said they'd remove their own second from the original Consent Agenda motion, he backed off. But boy did they want to undo the previous NO vote and to heck with veterans.

Even after City Manager Gordon Pedrow made it clear there were no more funds for any projects unless other projects were cut or unfunded, Ms. Levison still tried to move some projects from "unfunded" to "funded". In one case there was a question of conflict of interest to the point Ms. Levison had to remover herself from voting. It failed anyway, more time wasted.

Another item which I found extremely troubling, but I believe I predicted this as well some time in the last few months, was when Ms. Levison wanted to skip the hassle of waiting for the Election Reform group and just put in the budget money for publicly financed campaigns! I know I said somewhere that this group, which Ms. Levison helped put together, would come forward with suggestions, but that council would disregard what didn't fit their narrow agenda and vote in what they wanted and ignore this group by and large. I didn't expect it to happen so blatantly and as rapidly as this! Much more on this and reaction from this group upcoming on this little gem.

Believe me when I tell you I'm only scratching the surface on council's recent meetings. Watch it for yourself; it's not something to be proud of. I'm glad to see Councilmember Blue put it the way she did, because she was right on the money. We're in the midst of a sad and often befuddled governing body currently. It does not give me pleasure, nor does it Ms. Blue I assume, to have to point out this obvious sad state of affairs. See the price for not paying attention even for local elections?

Brandon Shaffer: Not a voter's best friend

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 06:24:00 GMT

How would you feel if you, along with almost 700,000 other Colorado voters (equaling 65.9% of the voters), voted one way but a newly elected representative tried to overturn that result, more than once? Worse yet, how would you feel if that representative voted to take away the right for you to vote on that issue again?

Thatâs exactly what current State Senator Brandon Shaffer did with Senate Bills SB06-223 and SB07-046. These two bills, which Senator Shaffer co-sponsored and voted in favor of, would've effectively overturned Amendment 36 (this amendment would have changed the way in which the state apportioned its electoral votes). The latter senate bill had an amendment to it that would "refer to people under referendum", Senator Shaffer voted NO. Bottom line, he wanted to undo the voters will in 2004 and not give them a chance to be heard again on this issue.

Why would he do this? These bills were the brainchild and pet projects of Senate Majority Leader Ken Gordon. You didn't think Mr. Shaffer moved up the ranks to Assistant Majority Leader in the Senate so quickly just on looks, did you? When youâre a good soldier for your leader and your party, there are perks. I asked the question, but didnât get an answer, as to how often Senator Shaffer voted against his own party. On all the important bills that I looked over he towed the party line straight down the line. Even if that meant undoing and silencing your vote.

Bipartisan? Independent? Hardly. Tell Mr. Shaffer you don't like your vote played with and vote NO on retaining him in his State Senate District 17 seat.

Other local representatives of note on this issue: Representative Jack Pommer (Dem-11) voted similarly to Senator Shaffer, and is running for re-election. Representative Paul Weissmann (Dem-12) should be commended on this issue for killing it in his committee.

October 13, 2008 Show

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:00:00 GMT

LONGMONT ADVOCATE SHOW NOTES
October 13, 2008 Show

Fuzz by Lords of Fuzz

"Bailout = SkyNet?" and audio from T3

"Markey Not Ready For Primetime" in
reference to recent debate

Firestone requests Longmont reconsider
St. Vrain River Corridor Annexation #2 Tri-town discussion

City Council partisanship, and what's wrong with it

The End by Polaradio

Runtime: 17:05

Contact info:
www.longmontadvocate.com
longmontadvocate.blogspot.com
chris@longmontadvocate.com
www.cafepress.com/longmontadvocat
www.votelongmont.org
www.facethestate.com/blogwrangler
http://www.examiner.com/x-517-Longmont-Examiner
Skype ID: longmontadvocate
message/fax: (206)309-7132
www.youtube.com/longmontadvocate
www.myspace.com/longmontadvocate
Subscribe on iTunes - search for Longmont in Podcasts

Copyright 2008 Longmont Advocate LLC - Before using this sound
recording for anything other than its intended use (listening),
read the following: DISCLAIMER: Music used in the sound recording
("Podcast") are the property of the original artist, and all rights
to these works, including lyrics and music, are the property of the artist.
This music is used in compliance with the terms of use with Podsafe Music
Network(music.podshow.com), and may not be used in any way by third parties
contrary to those terms. All other works are protected by the Creative
Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States
License for Longmont Advocate (Podcast, Website content, and Blog).
These works are the property of Longmont Advocate LLC. You may: share,
copy, distribute, display, and perform the work involved with this site.
But you must attribute the work in a manner specified by the author or
licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your
use of the work). You may not: use this work for commercial purposes,
alter, transform, or build upon this work.

Markey Not Ready For Primetime

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 04:55:00 GMT

I'm sure the papers and pundits will have their chance to dissect the debate Thursday night between the candidates for the 4^th Congressional district, Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave and her challenger Betsy Markey, but figured I'd throw in my two cents here. The video of this debate can be found at http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=101504&catid=339

Prior to this debate, I've met and spoke to Betsy Markey where she gave a speech to our organization, and of course the recent candidate forum here in Longmont last week (as mentioned in my recent podcast). I've never met Marilyn Musgrave, and have never seen her speak more than a sentence, usually during a news broadcast. I haven't followed her career nearly as much as some others around town, who do it quite often in an obsessive manner. So in many ways, this debate was an introduction to Ms. Musgrave for me.

From what I'd previously read and heard about Ms. Musgrave, she didnât appear to really set the world on fire, in and out of her own party. Ms. Markey seemed to me a friendly person, but I was never quite sure of her accomplishments and got the impression she was just running as the typical Democrat going for the anti-Republican or anti-Musgrave vote but not a lot behind her. After the Longmont event and this debate, I did get a little more feel for her experience, especially in relation to her small business.

But what struck me about this debate and her previous comments was that Ms. Markey doesnât really speak to the specifics of this district. Most of her comments were the same generic Democratic talking points that you can hear from any candidate in any state or district. Ms. Musgrave by comparison often brought up her own experience in Washington and how it relates to people and cities within the district she represents.

A couple of points on this debate: Ms. Musgrave was on the attack and her shots appeared to hit more effectively than Ms. Markey's. She brought up a YouTube video of Ms. Markey saying "You say drill. I say no. Debate's over" to oil drilling, which brings up a question of when it really happened (during the DNC?), and who filmed and uploaded it (friend of Markey's or Musgrave's?), there were two versions of that story.

The other shot Ms. Musgrave took was this "women owned business" issue that her representative leveled at Ms. Markey at the Longmont event. Ms. Markey skated around this again and tried to be a little too fine with her comment that her company never sought contracts as a woman owned business, but Ms. Musgrave provided quotes from Ms. Markey and information on her companies website that are clearly contradictory on this subject. We probably haven't heard the last of this issue.

Ms. Markey tried to hit Ms. Musgrave on money she's taken from Wall Street bankers. But this backfired when Ms. Musgrave pointed out that those contributions were from small community banks and credit unions.

In summary, Ms. Musgrave showed much more knowledge of who sheâs working for, which is probably why the Denver Post, of all newspapers, recently endorsed her. Personally, I was surprised at the strength of her performance and easy familiarity with the issues and her district.

Perhaps it was nerves and first time on a stage like this, but Ms. Markey was not nearly at ease and fell back on the obvious, stuff we've already heard and already know. While Ms. Markey may have a bright future in politics, voters should be considering knowledge and experience. In this race, there's really no comparison. Can't believe I'm about to agree with the Denver Post (thanks, by the way for printing me often in YourHub!), but as they said: "Musgrave has earned a fourth term."

October 6, 2008 Show

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Mon, 6 Oct 2008 22:00:00 GMT

LONGMONT ADVOCATE SHOW NOTES

October 6, 2008 Show
Oxygen by Dusty Hughes

Union annexation passes in Firestone
My take and opinion over the last year

"Bailout = SkyNet?" about similarities
between real life and fiction

October 1 Candidate forum with sparring
between Musgrave's speaker and Betsy Markey

"Candidates Forum: 3rd Parties"

The Onion's "War For The Whitehouse"
www.theonion.com

Guest editorial "Let it go, Longmont" by Dave Larison
Letter to City Council by Richard Yale
both about Union Annexation

Fuzz by Lords of Fuzz, who will be in concert
Fri Oct 24th 8pm at the Soiled Dove in Denver

Runtime: 32:15

Contact info:
www.longmontadvocate.com
longmontadvocate.blogspot.com
chris@longmontadvocate.com
www.cafepress.com/longmontadvocat
www.votelongmont.org
www.facethestate.com/blogwrangler
http://www.examiner.com/x-517-Longmont-Examiner
Skype ID: longmontadvocate
message/fax: (206)309-7132
www.youtube.com/longmontadvocate
www.myspace.com/longmontadvocate
Subscribe on iTunes - search for Longmont in Podcasts

Copyright 2008 Longmont Advocate LLC - Before using this sound
recording for anything other than its intended use (listening),
read the following: DISCLAIMER: Music used in the sound recording
("Podcast") are the property of the original artist, and all rights
to these works, including lyrics and music, are the property of the artist.
This music is used in compliance with the terms of use with Podsafe Music
Network(music.podshow.com), and may not be used in any way by third parties
contrary to those terms. All other works are protected by the Creative
Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States
License for Longmont Advocate (Podcast, Website content, and Blog).
These works are the property of Longmont Advocate LLC. You may: share,
copy, distribute, display, and perform the work involved with this site.
But you must attribute the work in a manner specified by the author or
licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your
use of the work). You may not: use this work for commercial purposes,
alter, transform, or build upon this work.

Bailout=SkyNet?

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Mon, 6 Oct 2008 05:08:00 GMT

Okay, much of this is tongue-in-cheek, but not completely.

When talk of this $700 billion bailout was being bandied about, and if it would work or not, a scene from "Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines" popped into my head. I'm sure Arnold won't mind me using his kisser on this story as we met on the set of an old movie of his ("Commando") and chatted between scenes about airplanes as he flirted with my girlfiend (now wife). Of course, the first and obvious question "Are you ever going to make Terminator 2?" But I digress.

As the GooGoo Dolls once wrote in a song "reruns have become our history", I figured it would be easier to paint a mental picture using popular culture for some of our friends who live through fiction and get their news from comedy sources, or former sportscasters who think theyâre comedy sources. Yes, I had to suffer through The Olberfuhror (aka Keith Olbermann) in his early sportscasting days pre-ESPN. Again, digression.

Remember the scene in T3 when the military leaders and their civilian contractors thought they had the answer to a growing virus problem with their systems? Think of the players in this bailout situation as those characters. So, with hesitation from some, but not all, they take the action they think will solve it - put SkyNet in control to eradicate the problem, in this case a virus. But why was there hesitation? Why is there still hesitation and trepidation over this bailout? Just like in the movie, people felt rushed into judgment, and most went along.

In the last couple of days since the bailout, I've heard financial talking heads say things that are not all that comforting: hoard your money and don't spend it! I don't think that's what will bring us back from this supposed brink. May have the opposite effect and cause a panic and a run on banks, not good.

But back to fiction, itâs easier. In the movie, the humans, including some who had the best of intentions, fell for the trick and sealed humankind's demise. In this bailout, I donât think those passing it are evil, just scared. Granted, some are opportunist no doubt, with all this ridiculous pork that has nothing to do with the point of the bill. But I hear much fear and doubt coming from these people, not grandstanding.

It doesn't calm people or markets fears when it appears our leaders are collectively holding their breath, now does it?

My concern is that not only will this not work, but not far down the line it'll be required again, and again. We're already seeing our largest state, California (the Arnold thing is all starting to make sense, no?), putting its hand out for a, well, handout. Somehow I doubt it will stop there.

Can I just skip through this chapter on the DVD?

Candidates Forum: 3rd Parties

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Sat, 4 Oct 2008 02:18:00 GMT

On October 1st, the Times-Call sponsored a Candidate Forum at Longmont High School, it was a fairly interesting night. I assume the televised version wonât quite capture some of the more interesting moments inside and outside of the auditorium, and the sound quality was abysmal throughout.

Thereâs plenty to talk about when it comes to this event, but the Times-Call has already had some reporting on it, so Iâll shed a different light on it.

Our city's non-partisan nature when it comes to City Council is a favorite subject of mine, Iâve written about it plenty of times and is a system I agree with. As I was watching and listening to the candidates, I wondered what it would be like to have all politics non-partisan in nature. To take the candidates at face value with no party attached to them and the baggage that includes. If you watch the TV replay of the various debates that occurred that night, think about it how youâd react if either there were no political parties, or if you had no idea which party any of the speakers were members of.

Quite often at these events, the most colorful and entertaining speakers are the third party candidates. This event was no different. Whether I agreed with their platforms or not, I made a point of trying to meet these speakers and tell them good luck and good job on their performance and passion. Names that come to mind from past events like this are Ralph Shnelvar and our own Paul Tiger. This time, speakers of interest were J.A. Calhoun, Bob Kinsey, and Douglas "Dayhorse" Campbell. Their party affiliation? If you need to know, look it up.

I'm no Pollyanna and know parties are probably here to stay, for better or worse. But it was nice to see old time politics, if only in my own mind, probably the way our founding fathers meant it to be, with candidates making their case, sometimes with great emotion and occasionally with humor. In that regard, they were all winners.

So, read up on your candidates and issues, and get out and vote. Like one of the slogans on the back of my old Wrongmont golf shirts said: "A Vote Is a Terrible Thing to Waste."

Next up, how partisanship shapes our local government.

Pathetic Congress Deserves Its Rating

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Thu, 2 Oct 2008 02:16:00 GMT

Historically lowest ratings for Congress, and today further highlighted why. This Democratically controlled excuse for our House of Representatives sent their hapless pack of leaders to the podium today for some of the more pathetic political theater witnessed in quite a while.

Lead by arguably the worst Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who stood up their giving kudos to the very people to blame for this bills failure. I had to laugh when she mentioned the "Whip", who is supposed to "whip" the vote, and who obviously failed miserably at it. The Democrats have the majority, they donât need a single Republican vote to do anything except override a veto. No veto was coming.

But this freakshow lead by Pelosi, Emanuel, Hoyer, and Frank (all D-who cares from where) couldnât restrain themselves attacking those awful Republicans who voted against this. Further proof there never was any deal, and for Pelosi to call the vote was foolhardy at best. This, after ripping into the very Republicans she needed, apparently, to get this passed.

I say apparently because while you listen to these fools rip 133 Republicans who voted NO, they seem to forget the 95 Democrats who also said NO. Colorado Democrats Mark Udall and John Salazar among them, as did Republicans Musgrave and Lamborn. Members of the Colorado delegation voting YES were Degette (D), Perlmutter (D), and Tancredo (R).

Why is this worst rated Congress ever? Does anyone really have to ask that question any more? It all starts at the sad top of the Democratic Party and their inept leadership. Not only canât they get any consensus from the opposing party, they canât get it from their own. Representatives from the Democratic Party who voted against this, like Udall and Salazar, need to step forward and not only defend their vote, but give a vote of no confidence (if that matters) in Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, and their whip Clyburn and demand a change in leadership ASAP.

This party wanted their chance and got it in 2006. They've made a mockery out of one branch of our government and showed that they are lead by a pack of buffoons. While they donât deserve to be returned to the majority, they probably will, but at the very least can any of them, say senatorial candidate Mark Udall, show a little spine and leadership? If you stand by this NO vote as a way to stand up for your constituents, stand up against your party leadership and lead or get out of the way. They were insulting you, too, Mark.

September 29, 2008 Show

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:00:00 GMT

LONGMONT ADVOCATE SHOW NOTES

September 29, 2008 Show
Fuzz by Lords of Fuzz

"October Surprises" and general
election comments and opinion

Times-Call editorializes against FasTracks

The Onion's "War For The Whitehouse"
www.theonion.com

No Sep 30 City Council Meeting

Artist Spotlight: Dusty Hughes / Polaradio
www.dustyhughes.com
www.polaradio.com

Everything by Polaradio

Runtime: 38:26

Contact info:
www.longmontadvocate.com
longmontadvocate.blogspot.com
chris@longmontadvocate.com
www.cafepress.com/longmontadvocat
www.votelongmont.org
www.facethestate.com/blogwrangler
http://www.examiner.com/x-517-Longmont-Examiner
Skype ID: longmontadvocate
message/fax: (206)309-7132
www.youtube.com/longmontadvocate
www.myspace.com/longmontadvocate
Subscribe on iTunes - search for Longmont in Podcasts

Copyright 2008 Longmont Advocate LLC - Before using this sound
recording for anything other than its intended use (listening),
read the following: DISCLAIMER: Music used in the sound recording
("Podcast") are the property of the original artist, and all rights
to these works, including lyrics and music, are the property of the artist.
This music is used in compliance with the terms of use with Podsafe Music
Network(music.podshow.com), and may not be used in any way by third parties
contrary to those terms. All other works are protected by the Creative
Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States
License for Longmont Advocate (Podcast, Website content, and Blog).
These works are the property of Longmont Advocate LLC. You may: share,
copy, distribute, display, and perform the work involved with this site.
But you must attribute the work in a manner specified by the author or
licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your
use of the work). You may not: use this work for commercial purposes,
alter, transform, or build upon this work.

October Surprises

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 22:15:00 GMT

With the increasing popularity of mail-in and early voting, the prospects of âOctober surprisesâ, or at least the effectiveness of them, decreases. George Will wrote about this recently http://www.newsweek.com/id/161202 and his apparent problem with early voting. I disagree.

Everyone should vote, of course the problem of every vote being legitimate is a problem with organizations like ACORN around, and the people who support them, like Barack Obama and the congressmen who put in the recent bailout language a provision to divvy up profits towards groups like, and possibly including, ACORN. Gladly, that language has been removed, but who inserted it? And who demanded it be stripped out? Possible Surprise #1.

But back to the point, no one wants to be standing in a long line for hours on Election Day, watching the magic hour of 7pm creeping closer and closer and voters left wondering if they'll be able to vote at all. With way too many amendments here in Colorado, the wait could be long unless people do some serious studying ahead of time. Or, people will just not even bother to vote on these amendments. What a waste of time and effort for the people who brought these issues to the ballot.

So with incentives galore, many people will probably opt for early voting (info at our Vote! Longmont site), so those October "surprisers" need to get to work early. What could be looming on the very short horizon? A few possibilities, and surprises usually work against the guy people know the least about, in this case Obama. John McCain's been around a while, a fact his detractors chortle with glee about as they point out his age. But with that comes familiarity, not a whole lot of surprises are possible or probable when it comes to this candidate.

But with Obama, the questions just donât go away, regardless of his "Fight The Smears" campaign. First, there's the ACORN and bailout connection above, then the story about his convicted felon buddy Tony Rezko apparently tiring of prison and may want to sing like jailbirds often do to cut a deal. Next up, Obamaâs "truth squad" in Missouri being called out for what they are by Governor Matt Blunt. If you missed it, here it is:

"St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.

"What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.

"This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jeffersonâs thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.

"Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts - not a free society.â

Pretty harsh, and not from a commentator, pundit, or partisan blogger. Next up is a story circulating about the Jopek family asking Obama to no longer wear the bracelet he mentioned at the recent debate. They made this request last March! First he made a smarmy glance towards McCain after saying "I got one, too", and then couldn't remember the Sergeants name.

Lastly, I cant believe we've heard the last of his ties to unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, and Obama's connection to the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debacle, you know, the underlying reason we find ourselves in the mess we're in requiring this bailout?

These are all very serious issues and not likely to go away after the election, regardless of its outcome. By all rights, Obama should be 20+ points ahead of McCain in an election year that should heavily favor the Democrats, especially facing a party that's been in office for 8 years. It's fairly normal over our course of elections to have this pendulum swing in such situations. The only recent example when it didn't happen was 1988, when Bush Sr. took over for Reagan - but it was just delayed 4 years. Then again, look who the Democrats put up against Bush, Dukakis for crying out loud. Even Dan Quayle couldn't lose that election for Bush.

So why isn't Obama way ahead when he should be? All of those questions above, and the general questions "Who is this guy? Why should I just take it on faith he'll do alright while heâs receiving on-the-job training?" Wasn't that Hillary Clinton who asked that second question?

For Obama to win, he needs to hit it out of the park repeatedly over the next couple of weeks, make no mistakes, and pray not a single one of the above issues get any legs in the press for any amount of time. In other words, hide, lie, and cover up your true self, or else people wont elect you, no matter how many hundreds of millions you raise and spend. What a great campaign strategy!

September 22, 2008 Show

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 21:00:00 GMT

LONGMONT ADVOCATE SHOW NOTES

September 22, 2008 Show
I'm The One Pick Me by Modern Science
www.ilovemodernscience.com

Blog picked up by Face The State
How would economic meltdown transpire?

"Give It A Rest" about endless mentions
of the Brennan Center for Justice

"More Udall Dirty Money"

CafePress Store merchandise
www.cafepress.com/longmontadvocat

The Onion News Network
www.theonion.com

City Council Watch
Parker Ag sues Longmont
Sep 23 Regular Session Agenda

Local and State amendments and issues
CO 46, 47, 48 / Longmont 2A, 3A, 3B

Every Little Thing by Modern Science

Runtime: 33:42

Contact info:
www.longmontadvocate.com
longmontadvocate.blogspot.com
chris@longmontadvocate.com
www.votelongmont.org
www.facethestate.com/blogwrangler
http://www.examiner.com/x-517-Longmont-Examiner
Skype ID: longmontadvocate
message/fax: (206)309-7132
www.youtube.com/longmontadvocate
www.myspace.com/longmontadvocate
Subscribe on iTunes - search for Longmont in Podcasts

Copyright 2008 Longmont Advocate LLC - Before using this sound
recording for anything other than its intended use (listening),
read the following: DISCLAIMER: Music used in the sound recording
("Podcast") are the property of the original artist, and all rights
to these works, including lyrics and music, are the property of the artist.
This music is used in compliance with the terms of use with Podsafe Music
Network(music.podshow.com), and may not be used in any way by third parties
contrary to those terms. All other works are protected by the Creative
Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States
License for Longmont Advocate (Podcast, Website content, and Blog).
These works are the property of Longmont Advocate LLC. You may: share,
copy, distribute, display, and perform the work involved with this site.
But you must attribute the work in a manner specified by the author or
licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your
use of the work). You may not: use this work for commercial purposes,
alter, transform, or build upon this work.

More Dirty Udall Money

chris@longmontadvocate.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 13:08:00 GMT

A year ago (Sep 8, 2007 YourHub & Wrongmont) I wrote a story called " Udall's Dirty Money", describing U.S. Senatorial candidate Mark Udall's ties to disgraced Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu, among others. I said then: " At first glance the $1,000 Udall accepted from Hsu seems fairly small and he's said he's going to donate it to the Colorado National Guard Foundation." Did he?

I added, " On top of the $1,000 he's giving back, let's not forget the $5,000 he got from the Hsu funded "For A Change PAC", the $10,000 from the Hsu funded "Searchlight Leadership Fund" (Harry Reid's PAC), and $40,000 from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committees, also recipients of large Hsu donations."

In the September 19 Rocky Mountain News comes word Mr. Udall accepted campaign donations from New York representative Charles Rangel, the Democratic chair of the House Ways and Means committee. If you you're not aware of the trouble this disgrace of a congressman is in lately, look it up, but to put it plainly, he's the taxman caught " allegedly" (in some cases admittedly) cheating on taxes.

From the RMN: " Udall, an Eldorado Springs Democrat, received $10,000 of campaign contributions from Rangel's leadership political action committee this year and $2,000 in 2000. He, like most other members of his party, voted against ordering Rangel to give up his seat."

Predictably, Udall's campaign threw out some numbers against his rival candidate Republican Bob Schaffer equaling less than half of the above numbers.

Regardless of the money, once again the judgment comes into question. Last time it was at best a shady character in Hsu, now a convicted felon after being on the run right here in Colorado (well, isn't that a coincidence?). Now, with a fellow party member who heads the committee with jurisdiction over taxation and a whole lot more in big trouble, not only does he accept and keep his contribution, he votes to keep this dishonorable "member" of congress in his powerful seat.

This Rangel is the same clown who brought forward a bill to re-institute the military draft, then voted against his own bill! In a rare and probably time wasting effort, I actually wrote his office about this, letting him know this is exactly the kind of waste and abuse of office so many people are sick and tired of. But I guess he's Mark Udall's kind of guy. Bravo.