Now for a Little Substance

Close of voting is just five days away. An untold number of ballots already have been cast, thanks to early and mail-in voting. Yet this is the first serious examination I've seen of where Tancredo and Hickenlooper differ on energy, water and environmental issues, though these are among the most important they'll deal with as governor. The differences are stark, but many Post readers, unless they did independent research, probably cast their votes in ignorance of these differences. The story comes too late to have the impact it should.

One of my many beefs with the media is how campaigns are typically covered. Most of the focus is on the horse race aspects, or tisk-tisking over the nasty campaign ads, while too little attention is paid, and often too late, to substantive differences between candidates. The media has made some adjustments to the prolonged voting period, which begins weeks before actual "election day" (maybe we should start using the term "election month"), but still seems to operate on the old timeline, holding important stories like this one until the 11th hour.

This story ought to have run weeks ago, when it could have stirred more debate and perhaps made a difference. As is, it's almost an afterthought -- something we should have talked more about before, not after, we elected a new governor.

The Politics of Pinon Canyon, Part 2

There's no more waffling, straddling, hedging, obfuscating or equivocating on U.S. Rep. John Salazar's part. He's declared that the U.S. Army will never make a compelling-enough case for Fort Carson expansion to win his approval, according to today's Pueblo Chieftain. Pinon Canyon expansion isn't going to happen while he's in Congress, Salazar says he told the Army's chief of staff, who had asked the congressman to keep an open mind on the issue. Salazar's mind is officially closed, apparently. End of story. Take your soldiers elsewhere to train. Preserving cattle culture in Southeastern Colorado must take precedent over national security and military preparedness, in his view.

Salazar also said -- and this might be the real news in the story -- that he's certain Gov. Bill Ritter, also a Democrat, will sign HB1317, a bill passed by the Colorado statehouse that attempts to erect yet another obstruction to expansion by barring the state from selling or even leasing state lands for that purpose. "I spoke with Governor Ritter this week and he indicated he will sign the state lands bill," Salazar told the newspaper -- which is a pretty definitive statement on the subject.

I also believe Ritter will sign the bill, for reasons presented in an earlier post. But this situation does present Republicans with a potential wedge issue to use against Salazar and Ritter when reelection time comes around. Former U.S. Rep. Scott McInnis, a Republican who once represented Salazar's district and is planning a run at Ritter in 2010, recently laid down a marker on the issue, by publicly urging Ritter to veto HB1317, in the interest of preserving future options and not sending anti-military signals back to Washington. If he can paint Ritter as just another anti-military Democrat, who's indifferent to the fate of important military bases (and jobs generators) in the state, McInnis might get some traction out of the situation.

How the issue plays for -- or against -- Salazar is a little more fuzzy. Clearly, Salazar is counting on his anti-expansion stance winning him votes in rural Southeastern Colorado and in the Democrat stronghold of Pueblo, where the Chieftain's editorial page has egged-on the obstructionism. But not a huge number of votes come from Southeastern Colorado. Pueblo can't be completely indifferent to the long-term fate of Fort Carson, due to proximity, and since many Carson soldiers live and shop there. And whether Salazar's pandering to anti-Army sentiment plays well in other parts of his sprawling district, especially the more conservative Western Slope, is an open question.

Remember: That was, until relatively recently, a Republican-leaning district, represented by McInnis. And the former congressman's continued open mind on the issue, in contrast to Salazar's now-adamant opposition to expansion, which could strike many of his constituents as unpatriotic or anti-military, could leave Salazar vulnerable if Republicans can put up a good challenger and frame the issue correctly.

It seems to me, early though it may be, that Pinon Canyon might be shaping up as a pivotal issue in at least two key Colorado races in 2010, if somewhat demoralized, on-the-defensive Republicans can bring effective fire to bear on the Democrats who seem to care more about cows than about combat-readiness.

Ritter Called Out on Questionable Jobs Claim

Like many a politician, Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter is prone to exaggerating the blessings his policies have bestowed on constituents. His over-selling of the state’s “new energy economy” – a windy catch-phrase Barack Obama has appropriated, without attribution – offers the best case in point. But thankfully there's at least one skeptic in the Colorado media who will bring the governor back down to earth when he embarks on these flights of fancy.

Ritter last week told energy conference attendees that his push for renewable energy and energy efficiency had directly or indirectly created 90,000 jobs in Colorado -- 90,000 -- citing an un-published report by the American Solar Energy Society. “We're quickly becoming a national and international hub for renewable energy," Ritter said of Colorado (though I've read or heard a lot of other governors make similar claims).

I’ve written before about this phantasm called “the new energy economy,” so I’m alert to Ritter's hucksterism on the issue. But apparently I wasn’t the only one taken back by the audacity of Ritter’s claim. Vincent Carroll, editorial page editor of the Rocky Mountain News, on Friday called Ritter out on the issue, in one of his always-incisive columns.

Here’s Carroll’s column, for readers who may have missed it.

"Gov. Bill Ritter made the startling claim this week that "the renewable energy industry is creating directly or indirectly 90,000 jobs" in Colorado - in other words, 20,000 more than the estimated employment associated with the booming oil and gas industry.

Is that possible?

Probably not, even if the figure does eventually appear in a study scheduled for release in a few weeks by the American Solar Energy Society in Boulder. Ritter got a sneak preview of the results - little wonder, as his office co-commissioned the research - which reinforced his New Energy Economy theme. So he started trumpeting the findings.

Let's put the figure of 90,000 jobs in perspective. It's nearly twice the number of cops, firefighters, security guards and prison guards in Colorado - combined. It's more than the combined total of every teacher in K-12 schools together with every lawyer and paralegal.

Ninety thousand is twice the waiters and waitresses in this state, twice the number of fast-food workers, and only 10,000 or so less than the total for all major health-care occupations (see the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the occupational employment totals).

Here's another reality check: After the legislature increased the renewable energy standard for utilities last year from 10 percent to 20 percent for 2020, the League of Conservation Voters - not known for soft-pedaling the impact of green energy - told its members that the measure would create a grand total of 4,100 jobs.

So what's up with the 90,000 claim?

For a clue, go to the American Solar Energy Society Web site and review a report called Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency: Economic Drivers for the 21st Century. The first thing you'll realize is that Ritter defined the industry more narrowly than the study apparently will. It will measure jobs not only in renewable energy but in the "energy efficiency" industry, too - which casts a very wide net.

The report admits that the energy efficiency business is "much more nebulous and difficult to define" than renewables, but that doesn't stop it from trying. For openers, its definition includes "partial segments of large industries such as vehicles [those considered energy efficient], buildings, lighting, appliances, etc." And don't sneer at that "etc." because it covers a lot of ground, too, including "insulation sales" and the recycling industry.

Never mind that people have been blowing insulation into walls for decades: That activity has now been drafted into the New Energy Economy, where it can be displayed by politicians as a trophy of their economic leadership.

According to the solar energy society, "one in four jobs in 2030" could be in the renewable-energy and energy-efficiency industries. One in four! You could be an autoworker, plumber, architect, welder, bureaucrat, furnace salesperson - you name it - and apparently be counted.
"Do you have a green job?" the society asks. "You will."

Now, there is always a certain amount of stretching and reaching in a study whose purpose is to magnify the importance of a particular activity. If the authors become too greedy, though, the exercise begins to take on the features of a farce. Maybe there are 500 renewable-energy companies in Jefferson County, as the governor also said - three times the number of public schools - but it's going to be interesting to see just what that list includes.

Who knows, maybe you're in charge of one and didn't even know it."

Carroll is at something of a disadvantage, trying to critique a report that isn't out yet. But it's not hard to anticipate that the conclusions will be skewed to advance Ritter's agenda, given that it's a state-funded "study" conducted by what's obviously an advocacy group.

A guess the next question should be: Is this an appropriate use of taxpayer money?

Colorado Corrects the Record

Secretary of State Mike Coffman yesterday challenged the facts and conclusions of a New York Times story -- the subject of my blog post yesterday -- that claimed Colorado and 5 other states were illegally purging voters from the rolls. Coffman identified at least two major factual errors in the story; something he blamed on miscommunication between his office and the paper, rather than biased or sloppy journalism. And, just to make the critique bipartisan, State Democratic Party chair Pat Waak chimed in, confirming the inaccuracies.

The Rocky has a more thorough treatment of the story here.

Will the Times correct the record? Perhaps. But don't look for that in bold black on page 1-A. The correction will be tucked away, in the smallest print possible, where you'll have to hunt for it. And in the meantime, the perception has been created, just a few weeks before election day, that states are "illegally" purging people from the voter rolls, in what might sound, to a casual or sloppy news reader, like some sort of dark plot.

You can bet the story was also been clipped and filed away by certain law firms, just in case the outcomes of certain razor thin races are contested in court.

These problems originate not with the states, as I pointed out yesterday, but with Washington's 2002 effort to "fix" a state-based election system that wasn't, by and large, broken. That's the real story -- which the Times brushed past in its search for something more sensational.

Obamunami Update

The surge in Iraq may not be working for Barack Obama as a debating point, but another surge -- the tidal wave of newly-registered voters -- is working for him where it counts even more, on the political battlefield in Colorado. I predicted, only a few posts ago, that Obama will win convincingly in Colorado, based on a flurry of stories, from around the state, indicating that the surge in new voter registrations is running overwhelmingly in favor of Democrats. Today comes two more stories, from Pitkin County and Eagle County, confirming the trend.

These are smaller counties, it's true. And Republicans will argue that, statewide, they still have an edge, depending on how Colorado's large block of unaffiliated voters break. Here's a snapshot of the situation from 40,000 feet, which doesn't seem as dire for the GOP. But the momentum, and the numbers game, clearly is moving decisively against them, irrespective of debate performances or political advertising barrages.

An Obamunami is coming. All the GOP can do now is duck and cover.

But perhaps, after some years of wandering in the political wilderness, if the party's leaders can rediscover core values and articulate a coherent philosophy and agenda, the Republicans can return a stronger contender, having regained both their souls and the political high ground.

Brace for the Obamunami

Even if Sarah Palin wipes the floor with Joe Biden’s hair plugs tonight, the political tide seems to be turning decisively against the GOP here in Colorado, judging from a flurry of recent stories about voter registration trends.

In story after story after story we learn that there’s been a significant surge in voter registration -- a surge that heavily favors Democrats. Left-wing celebrities are venturing out into "flyover country," including pivotal Colorado, to boost registration among impressionable college students. Obamanistas are even having a voter registration pub crawl in Boulder, helping ensure he'll get the beer-guzzler vote

Now, we’re told by experts that many of the newly-registered don’t actually show up to vote. We're also reassured, by Republican politicos whistling past the graveyard, that this remains a solidly red state, statistically speaking. But even if half the newly-registered show up election day, the GOP seems in serious trouble. Palin's star status seems to be fading far faster than Obama's is, barring an electrifying performance tonight.

For all the talk about debates, and the candidate's positioning, and how 11th hour developments like the economic crisis could suddenly shake things up, politics is still a numbers game. And the numbers just don‘t look good for the GOP. If there’s no significant game-changer, I predict that Obama will carry Colorado -- decisively.