Jeff Peters: Erroneous letter

Advertisement

Regarding the erroneously titled letter to the editor " Bipartisan Representation" submitted by Dave Moloney.

Mr. Moloney's letter was nothing more than an attempt to besmirch Rep. Diane Mitsch Bush with a list of Republican talking points. That Mr. Moloney dragged out the Colorado Union of Taxpayers (CUT) and their rating system by announcing that CUT gave her a 9.8 rating speaks volumes. Especially when one considers that the Colorado Union of Taxpayers is anything but bipartisan. 

I researched the Colorado Union of Taxpayers and discovered that the people who have signed the CUT pledge (uphold TABOR, privatize everything, voucher system for education, no new taxes, etc.) reads like a list of every Republican who has held, is holding or who is seeking to hold political office in Colorado. That would explain why CUT's rating system gives the 15 Republican Senate members (11 of whom have signed CUT's pledge) an average 78.558 rating while the 20 Democratic members (none of whom are pledged to CUT) received an average rating of 5.644.

With regard to the Colorado House members, the 28 Republican members average CUT score was 80.038 while the 37 Democrat House members average CUT score was 2.48. Additionally, both the Senate and the House ratings lists provided by the Colorado Union of Taxpayers are titled "Friend or Foe." Can't get much more partisan than that. The Colorado Union of Taxpayers is definitely not a bipartisan organization, and Mr. Mahoney should be ashamed to trying to pass it off as one.

Also of interest is the fact that the Colorado Union of Taxpayers chooses to include the word "Union" in the name of the organization. A strange choice of words when one considers that the Colorado Union of Taxpayers is against unions. Proof of that is SB-025 Collective Bargaining for Firefighters. The Colorado Union of Taxpayers states "CUT believes that there should be no place for unions in the public sector." So, they're against unions but they choose to call themselves a union.

The Colorado Union of Taxpayers with its long and impressive list of pledge signers reads like a Who's Who of Colorado Republicans and sounds like something out of a playbook written by Grover Norquist, the Koch Brothers or Karl Rove.

Perhaps Mr. Moloney doesn't like Ms. Bush's politics because she received a 100 percent rating from the Women's Lobby of Colorado, an 89 percent rating from the ACLU and a 70 percent rating from Planned Parenthood — oganizations that try to help people, especially women.

Or perhaps, he doesn't like her because she is a Democrat and dares to vote for the well-being of the people and against the tenets of the Republican Party. Fine. That's his privilege. However, if that's the case, Mr. Moloney should just be truthful and say so rather than write a letter filled with innuendo and misleading statements.

Comments

Ken Collins 9 months, 2 weeks ago

I agree, Jeff. It seems that most far right groups feel that your title of the group has to include Freedom, Liberty, Constitution, America or Patriot. Does that make it better for the country? And Mr. Moloney's comment about DMB representing special interests instead of her constituency is odd because of the fact that she won her election, which was voted on by constituents, apparently mostly for her. Rove is the champion of taking the GOP's weaknesses and attempting to turn them into strengths by just saying so. Koch bros are interested in only one thing and that is enlarging their fortunes. When the far right follows the mantras of a Beck, a Limbaugh, a Cruz, a Santorum, a West and the list goes on and on, one must sit back and evaluate the actual common sense in their collective brain. And we have a smaller government than we've had in many years. Check how many months the monthly jobs report has included fewer government employees. The GOP has tried to rebrand itself since losing in '12 but somehow are still alienating the same groups as always. "You can't make a silk purse...."

1

Rich Hall 9 months, 2 weeks ago

I just read Mr. Moloney's letter and I did not find any reference to the CUT as a "Bipartisan" organization. They are an obviously right wing group and I saw no attempt at trying to "Pass them off" as anything.

One other point to Mr. Peters - being against public sector unions is not the same thing as being against unions. There is a significant difference. Many public sector employees must agree to NOT organize. This is a mutually agreed upon condition of their employment. This makes sense when you consider the nature of the services they provide. A society cannot survive without law enforcement, fire protection, emergency care, military service, air traffic control, etc. An organized union gives the employees an undue amount of leverage and places a dagger right at the heart of the societies they are sworn to serve.

On the other hand, private sectors unions protect workers against powerful corporations by giving them some much needed leverage. Shutting down a factory or a coal mine does not have the same consequences as shutting down a fire department or a hospital.

3

Scott Wedel 9 months, 2 weeks ago

The context of Dave Moloney's letter was that DMB is not bi-partisan. He used the ratings from CUT and Principleofliberty.org to argue she was not bi-partisan, but those are two highly conservative partisan organizations.

Thus, his letter presents a rather bizarre argument of talking about bi-partisanship as if that means everyone should agree with him.

1

jerry carlton 9 months, 2 weeks ago

DMB is leading us to the promised land. Blah, Blah, Blah.

0

john bailey 9 months, 2 weeks ago

you mean ? no way , we're not in the promised land already ? well xit......~;0)

1

Scott Wedel 9 months, 2 weeks ago

Then Dave Moloney should have written a letter saying DMB is pursuing wrong headed policies. But instead he talked about bi-partisanship and did so in a way that is contrary to the definition of bi-partisanship.

0

Dave Moloney 9 months, 2 weeks ago

I would agree with Mr. Peters first statement that my letter was erroneously titled. The title was not submitted by me, but placed on my letter by the paper.

The point of my letter was not that I am more or less partisan than Diane Mitsch-Busch. The point was that Diane avoids talking about her partisan votes in favor of the nicer sounding "bipartisan" sound bite.

I state "The reality is that there are partisan issues..." I did not state that either of the organizations I referenced are non-partisan. I merely put some information out there that people could check for themselves.

Diane and I have spoken and we have always been cordial and friendly. I think she is a smart, hard working woman, we just disagree on most policy issues. For my part, my comments will be based on the substance of the issues and Diane's voting record and not on personal attacks.

You'll be hearing a lot more from me on the issues in the coming months.

1

Steve Lewis 9 months, 2 weeks ago

Dave, If you will be running for Dianne's seat, could you say so as we hear from you in the coming months? It is an important disclosure on your part when you are speaking about Dianne. It also creates an invitation for voters to ask for your positions on issues that matter to them. Thanks.

1

Anne Mayberry 9 months, 2 weeks ago

Dave is correct about one thing....there are partisan issues...always. And one will chose his or her side of an issue according to one's personal context and how that fits with one's political proclivities. However, Dave telling us that Diane does not represent her constituents is his opinion and is directly derived from his personal world view and the like minded people with whom he surrounds himself. This quote from Dave says it all "We need a representative who will fight for us down in Denver". Which "us" are you referring to Dave?

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 9 months, 2 weeks ago

Mr. Collins, As you brought up the Koch brothers and their being "interested in only one thing, and that is enlarging their fortune", then what pray tell are the 58 groups ahead of them on the top political donors up to. here are a few sentences from the article and I will post the link to the list of donors.

" The data on campaign spending from 1989-2014: the largest donors are labor unions and left-leaning grassroots groups. In fact, the number one donor is Act Blue, which hasn’t been around all that long." of" the top 15 political donors. Eleven of the 15 tilt Democratic while none tilt Republican, and nine of them are labor unions, with the second largest political donor being the giant public employee union, AFSCME. Koch Industries comes in way down at 59th place on the list. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

2

Dave Moloney 9 months, 2 weeks ago

Steve, I made a formal announcement about my candidacy some time ago and there should be an article here on the website. I don't expect Diane will be using this blog to debate issues and as such, neither will I. To the extent that the paper will publish my letters to the editor, I will use that format to get my positions out to the public.

Anne, Having worked together for many years we both know that you and I don't agree on some partisan issues. For my part I have tried to not let that negatively influence our friendship. I think civil discourse about both sides of an issue is an important step in finding middle ground when possible. With that in mind, I hope to have opportunities to debate Diane in the future. As to your question, I think the fact that 2/3 of the local electorate voted against Amendment 66, Diane's proposed solution to education reform, is a clear indicator that she is out of touch with the majority of her constituents.

2

Ken Collins 9 months, 2 weeks ago

Dave, she may be "out of touch with the majority' on Amend 66. That is all you can conclude and not with all issues. Again, she won the election. Let's say you voted for W in 2000. With less votes than Gore, he must have been out of touch also. Imagine that.

0

Fred Duckels 9 months, 2 weeks ago

The reason Dianne can win is that her backers will lay down their lives for her. On the other side conservatives seem lacking and will not comment when they obviously have logic on their side. But then when a party muscles out Santa Claus it is hard to compete with free candy.

0

Scott Wedel 9 months, 2 weeks ago

Fred,

I think your political analysis has got it backwards.

DMB's electoral success is not because of some core of committed supporters, but because she has been able to attract independents. Meanwhile, local Republicans candidates have a hard time trying to attract independents without losing the support of conservatives.

I think it will be hard to use Amendment 66 against DMB because it was just a ballot measure and the voters were free to reject it. She has plenty of other votes to show she was in touch.

And Dave Moloney has many issues in which he'll have to decide between conservatives and independents. A simple starting point would be for him to give an opinion on global climate change and whether that should be any government policies.

1

Dan Kuechenmeister 9 months, 2 weeks ago

Scott, Global climate change? Could you please share what is your definition of "global climate change". Also is it a good thing or a bad thing. Are you against it or for it. I happen to be in favor of global climate change. Hard to be against something that has been going on as long as the solar system has been in existence. This country has way too many problems that need to be fixed now for me to worry or even think about "global climate change". In my opinion mankind is much more likely to be impacted by the next world war then by climate change. The only one I know impacted by global climate change is Al Gore. Made tons of money on global climate change. Hey, bully for him. Ain't capitalism grand. He is one of the 1%ers that some like to whine about. And speaking of climate change there is an interesting trial commencing. To me, it looks like an assault on free speech.

The critical point in this campaign is a defamation lawsuit by global warming promoter Michael Mann against Mark Steyn, National Review, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/02/12/mann_vs_steyn_the_trial_of_the_century__121528.html#ixzz2tEczvodZ

1

Scott Wedel 9 months, 2 weeks ago

If Dave Moloney says he agrees with your viewpoint then he loses the votes of independent voters. And if he doesn't agree with denying basic science then he loses the votes of people like you.

Global Climate Change as climate change the result of man's activities, in particular burning fuels and increasing the levels of atmospheric CO2.

I think that the USA has invested great sums based upon the existing climate and it is going to cost us trillions to adapt to the climate changes for which human activity is largely responsible.

The defamation suit is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it is defamation or within free speech rights. The lawsuit won't affect the underlying science.

1

Dan Kuechenmeister 9 months, 2 weeks ago

Scott, What exactly do you mean by "he loses the votes of people like you"?

1

Scott Wedel 9 months, 2 weeks ago

Dan,

I mean people that believe in similar stuff as you. Such not believing that man's activities is causing global climate change.

0

Steve Lewis 9 months, 2 weeks ago

Dave, I'm surprised you disagree. Criticism from a bystander carries a different weight than criticism from an opposing candidate. You can't assume every reader knows you are a candidate. Seems you would want them to know?

I'm used to seeing the Pilot provide free equal column space and also market rate advertising space to candidates.

0

Dave Moloney 9 months, 2 weeks ago

Steve, The original draft of my letter was rejected by the editor of the paper because it had "campaign" language in it. I had to re-write it. Any confusion about the fact that I am a candidate was caused by the paper's editorial policy.

1

Dan Shores 9 months, 2 weeks ago

Agree with Anne, Which "us" are you referring to Dave.

1

Dan Shores 9 months, 1 week ago

Thanks for your letter Jeff. I think it is clear that to republicans, right wingers or whatever they call themselves these days, bipartisan and bipartisan negotiation means that they get everything they want without giving anything up. If you don't give them everything they want you are accused of refusing to sit down at the table and negotiate. You are accused of being unable to lead. Dave, by citing a CUT score and not disclosing that it is a right wing organization, and you should know how important disclosures are, you are behaving in exactly the way that is so irritating to voters. You knew that if you disclosed the facts about CUT, your argument would completely fall apart, so you chose to just omit this very important piece of information in order to make your point. The American people are smarter than that Dave. We have the internet and it is really easy to look things up. If you or any members of your party really want to win any election ever, you are going to have to start telling the whole truth, stop using vague generalizations and deceptive language, stop alienating minorities, women, the LGBT community, the poor, the elderly and stop focusing on social issues such as a woman's right to chose and insisting that we all be Christians and start coming up with a message that resonates with all Americans and not just a tiny demographic of older white rich people.

1

Chris McCombs 9 months, 1 week ago

To say that Dave Moloney does not care about the well-being of people or is untruthful is just false. I serve on the board of Lift-Up with Dave and his insight and compassion are genuine qualities that help him serve many in our area. I’ve known Dave for 18 years and have seen him assist and love others through many acts of kindness, compassion and generosity. I find Dave to be a fine human being who actually cares about the well-being of people – all while being a Republican!

As an independent voter, it pains me to see our country fight the way it does over politics (and it comes from both sides of the aisle) to the extent of tarnishing peoples character in online forums such as these. Surely elected officials (and candidates) of all political persuasions serve in order to help others. But, just because there are major differences between how each side believes problems can be solved does not mean they don’t want them solved.

It’s time that we who love this country realize that issues are issues and have multiple opinions and solutions. Different people can believe in different solutions without that making them bad people. Let’s keep issues as issues and people as people! As a pastor, my prayer is that of the Apostle Paul who said in Romans 12:18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.”

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 9 months, 1 week ago

Scott Wedel This ones for you.

At the outset, let's be quite clear: There is no consensus about dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW) -- and there never was. There is not even a consensus on whether human activities, such as burning fossil fuels to produce useful energy, affect global climate significantly. So what's all this fuss about?

Let's also be quite clear that science does not work by way of consensus. Science does not progress by appeal to authority; in fact, major scientific advances usually come from outside the consensus; one can cite many classic examples, from Galileo to Einstein. [Another way to phrase this issue: Scientific veracity does not depend on fashionable thinking.] In other words, the very notion of a scientific consensus is unscientific.

The degree of consensus also depends on the way the questions are phrased. For example, we can get 100% consensus if the question is "Do you believe in climate change?" We can get a near-100% consensus if the question is "Do you believe that humans have some effect on the climate?" This latter question also would include also local effects, like urbanization, clearing of forests, agriculture, etc.

Read more:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/02/climate_consensus_con_game.html

1

Dan Kuechenmeister 9 months, 1 week ago

What I don't understand is when one posts an argument against the possibility that "climate change/global warming is according to Secretary of State Kerry is a " weapon of mass destruction" all we hear are crickets. Scott where are you? John St Pierre, Pat West, Steve Lewis, Ken Collins, Dan Shores?

0

Dan Shores 9 months, 1 week ago

Dan K. Even if you don't believe the overwhelming number of scientist who have concluded that the activities of man are indeed contributing to climate change, even if you don't believe them, wouldn't you want to live in a cleaner environment anyway? Wouldn't you think it a priority to find clean renewable sources of energy that will also eliminate our dependence on foreign sources of energy and create a new industry and new jobs right here in America?

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 9 months, 1 week ago

Dan S. Never said I was against a cleaner environment. My wife and I do what we can to conserve as I would guess you do as well. What I am against is using "climate change" as a means to promote expensive sources of energy as an alternative to currently cheaper carbon based energy. I am for the middle class and less than middle class. The 10%ers can take care of themselves. If there is a profit to be made in developing alternative sources of energy then there are companies out there that will figure it out. We will create a new industry and new jobs in America. That has been and will be the way America rolls if the government would just stay out of the way. The government has declared the debate is over. I happen to disagree. Alternative sources of energy will be found and they will become competitively priced but it will take time. Look at the revolution in technology that has evolved over the past 30+ years. But we weren't forced to pay for the technology, we chose to purchase it and look how much more efficient the technology has become and at lower price points (I owned and Apple IIe with external disc drives and 5 inch floppies. paid more for that then for my Ipad). Patience will be rewarded. Haste makes waste - like Solyndra etc. Thanks for your response. It is appreciated. In this case while we may disagree on which road to take I think we hope to get to the same end result

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.