Dave Moloney: Understand the challenges

Advertisement

I was excited to receive the Today’s invitation to submit an op-ed piece about my candidacy for the House District 26 seat in the Colorado House of Representatives. I know that my experiences have prepared me well to serve as your representative, and I am thankful for the opportunity to earn your support.

Like many of you, I came here for the skiing and world class recreational opportunities. But it was the people that made me truly fall in love with our community. The joy that I have experienced in living here is what inspires me to give back.

While I didn’t have the good fortune to be born and raised here, I did have the good sense to recognize that there really wasn’t any better place to live. Over the last 25 years, I’ve built my life here and taken on a number of roles. I’ve worn a lot of different hats and have enjoyed it thoroughly.

I have gone from ski bum to small business owner, single guy to proud father, from starting a new career to becoming a leader in my profession, from living in a trailer park to owning my own home and from simply enjoying this beautiful place to giving back by helping out in a variety of community organizations.

I understand the challenges that face young people, families and small businesses that want to succeed here, and I’m committed to working towards a state government that fosters your success and respects your freedom. My decision making will be based on the belief that you are capable of determining what is best for you and that you don’t need the government micromanaging your life.

Colorado currently has one of the highest unemployment rates in our region. Yet, over the last two years, while many Coloradans were struggling just to make ends meet, our current representative was pushing through special interest pet projects. Co-sponsoring what would have been the largest tax increase in Colorado history, driving up utility costs for rural Coloradans and assaulting the freedoms of law-abiding Colorado citizens by passing unenforceable gun legislation.

We can do better. As your representative, I’ll focus my energy on creating and maintain good paying Colorado jobs. I will work for education reform that maintains local control and gives parents more choice. I will support the responsible development of Colorado’s energy resources while protecting the environment, creating good jobs and furthering our energy independence. I’ll fight wasteful spending of your hard-earned tax dollars, and I will defend your Constitutional rights and freedoms.

Thank you for your consideration of my candidacy. I look forward to meeting you out on the campaign trail and hope you’ll join me in making a change for the better in our state government this year.

Feel free to contact me at coloradocandidate@gmail.com.

Comments

Dan Shores 6 months ago

Dave,

You stated that government is "micromanaging" our lives. Would you mind elaborating on this and telling us in exactly what ways you believe that government is "micromanaging" and what changes you would make.

You also mentioned the "unenforceable" Colorado gun laws. What is your plan to stop the tragic loss of life due to gun violence that is occurring at an alarming rate. What will you do to prevent tragedies such as Columbine and the Aurora theater shooting?

You also mentioned the energy sector. What is your plan to protect our environment, our streams and rivers and the air we breathe from pollution due to energy production. Will you work toward finding clean, renewable sources of energy here in Colorado?

Do you support a woman"s right to choose with regard to reproductive rights? What is your stand on legislation such as the "personhood amendment"? Would you support a woman's right to choose in cases of rape, incest, or the health of the mother?

What do you plan to do to reduce the outrageously expensive health insurance premiums in ski towns and rural area such as Steamboat Springs? Do you plan to work with the insurance industry to address this problem, or is your plan to impede the progress of the ACA?

What is your stance on voter ID laws? Do you believe that voter fraud is actually occurring and that it is important to make it more difficult to vote, especially for the poor and the elderly, in order to prevent voter fraud?

Thanks Dave and good luck to you!

1

Ken Mauldin 6 months ago

Dave: Please be aware that there are no circumstances that would cause Dan Shores to vote for anyone that doesn't subscribe to the ideology that government knows best. In light of the far-left liberal premise of Dan's questions, I've provided the Democrat/Liberal answers to his queries below:

Liberals believe that it's justified to micromanage individual lives for the greater good and that forcing home builders to build according to federal dictates rather than what free people want to buy is a better plan. If you disagree with this then you're a racist that wants poor children to be homeless and hungry.

Liberals believe that the State of Colorado has a compelling interest in telling people that they may have an unlimited number of low capacity magazines (15 rounds or less) but may not have a single magazine that holds 30 rounds. Liberals will argue that the Second Amendment is about hunting and practically void in modern times despite the recent DC v Heller decision and the Federalist Papers that describe the purpose of the proposed Amendment prior to its passage. If you disagree, you're a racist and probably know someone who shares the Tea Party's ideals of limited government.

Liberals believe that raising everyone's power bill by 30% and the loss of thousands of coal jobs is a great idea. Remember, the religion of man caused global warming is a democratic process and anything that an assembled majority of scientists agree on is settled scientific law. There's no need to be bogged down with the traditional scientific method of an idea being testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable to be considered science; now majority rules. If you disagree, you're a racist and want dirty air and water.

One of the fundamental tenants of liberalism is the foundational and sacred belief that sticking a pair of scissors in the skull of a partially born human is a woman's right. Dare to disagree with this one and you're a knuckle-dragging, racist neanderthal that probably believes in God.

Liberals believe that forcing a 75 year-old woman to buy maternity coverage in case she gets pregnant is a big improvement over the freedom she had previously to choose the coverage that was right for her. If you disagree, you're a racist that wants old people to not have insurance and eat dog food.

Liberals refuse to support any suggestion of requiring a photo ID to vote. Yet they have no problem at all requiring a photo ID to board an airplane or buy a beer or get married or enter a Federal Courthouse or buy a gun. If you dare to point out that's a blatantly hypocritical position, then you're obviously a racist that would steal elections through denying poor people the right to vote.

5

Scott Wedel 6 months ago

The gun laws are as unenforceable as the sales tax laws. Just as the government cannot stop a private gun sale, it cannot stop a private transaction in which sales tax is not collected.

But virtually no one is saying the sales tax law is unenforceable and should be repealed. The sales tax law works because of the ability to investigate after the fact. Same principle with the gun control laws. No one can stop a private gun sale, but when investigating a gun crime by someone not allowed to own a gun then they can pursue how the person acquired the gun.

The photo ID voter laws have one purpose which is to deny the vote to people seen as likely to vote Democratic. The number of cases of voter impersonation is close to zero if not actually zero and there is no evidence of it being a problem. There is proof that there are valid voters without current photo IDs. Thus, the photo ID laws block a fundamental right to vote,

1

Ken Mauldin 6 months ago

Scott; Possessing a firearm in your home was determined by the Supreme Court to be an individually enumerated Constitutional Right (see: District of Columbia v Heller., 2008). In light of this ruling, do you agree that requiring a photo ID to purchase a firearm blocks the exercise of a fundamental Right? Both instances, voting and buying a firearm, require photo ID to demonstrate qualifications.

In fact, if you're exercising your First Amendment Rights in the public square you may be required to show ID to the police in order to continue (the alternative is you are forced to stop by being arrested for not producing ID).

I don't understand the aversion to producing ID to vote when the exercise of so many other fundamental rights require it.

3

Scott Wedel 6 months ago

Heller did not say there was an absolute right to purchase a gun. Felons and the mentally ill can legally be denied gun ownership.

If a gun purchase required signing up to be on an approved list that needs to have the current home address and at any time someone on the list can verify their recent purchases then I'd accept a signature for buying a gun.

In fact, having to sign a form to be put on a list and having to live at the stated address to be eligible to purchase a gun that could then be purchased with just a signature under penalty of law would probably please most gun control advocates. Do you think the NRA would support it?

1

Ken Mauldin 6 months ago

I never claimed that Heller confirmed an absolute right to own a gun. Where did you get that idea? In fact, it's because you don't have an absolute right to own a gun that you're required to provide a photo ID. Since you brought it up, there isn't an absolute right to vote either and felons can be legally denied a vote. Non-residents aliens aren't allowed to purchase a gun or vote. It's exactly because there are restrictions that we should be checking ID in both scenarios. Thanks for continuing to help me make my point.

Regarding lists; Should you have to be on a list to go to an approved church? You may know that Sen Reid has been pushing for a Bill that would limit First Amendment "press" protection only to government approved organizations. Is that what you had in mind? That you can only exercise your First Amendment rights if you've managed to get your name on a government approved list? I'll concede that the Second Amendment does not specifically address a prohibition of lists of gun owners and the Supreme Court has left open the door to the interpretation of reasonable restrictions for cases that follow Heller. On the other hand, the National Firearms Act expressly prohibits the collection and maintenance of gun owner data, so any conversation of a national registration list isn't going to happen anytime soon.
See the section titled "Registry prohibition" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_...

1

Scott Wedel 6 months ago

Going to church, freedom of speech, right to petition the government are fundamental rights that applies to everyone including felons and the mentally ill

Voting without a photo ID has been done without fraud issues because voters must first submit a signed voter registration card and thus be on a list of approved voters. Another signature is required when voting and the use of a voting list will catch attempts to vote twice using the same name. These checks have successfully prevented voter ID fraud.

You seem to have missed the point that I'd expect that gun control advocates would accept a similar system as voting to replace the current requirement of showing a photo ID to purchase a gun. If a potential gun buyer had to first register to buy a gun by signing a form with current address and then could only buy a gun if on the list then it'd probably be fine with gun control advocates if that a purchase only needed a matching signature.

The point being that voting because of having the registration step and the creation of an approved list is already more secure than the gun purchase process. The fact that gun rights advocates fear the security step of a list and got a federal law prohibiting such a list is why a valid photo ID has to be included in a gun purchase.

As things stand now, the Republicans are making it harder to vote than to purchase a gun.

1

Ken Mauldin 6 months ago

Steve; Your claim that voting registration is "already more secure than the gun purchase process" is demonstrably false and laughable. Have you ever even heard of having a background check before you can vote? Please share with us the name of the government agency that performs background checks for voters. Have you ever heard of ACORN? Are you aware that this leftest organization, ACORN, committed voter registration fraud by the thousands on behalf of the Democrats? Here's a reference to how many ACORN staffers were convicted and jailed for voter registration fraud:

http://ballotpedia.org/ACORN_and_voter_registration_fraud

Since we've covered the Democrats that were jailed for rampant voter registration fraud, let's look at examples of recent gun registration fraud. There are two instances of gun-running fraud that comes to mind:

1. Democrat US Att General Eric Holder decided, in violation of US gun law, to provide guns to Mexican narco-terrorists. Since you're a dedicated liberal, perhaps you could share with us why a Democrat Attorney General intentionally sent guns into Mexico for drug dealers in direct violation of the law.

2. Next we have Democrat California State Senator Leland Lee running AK-47s to known gangs in exchange for campaign money in violation of US gun laws.

In summary, the fraud in both areas, voting and guns, are clearly and overwhelmingly committed by leftest. Democrats have become the party of fraud in current American politics. At least we can keep our insurance policy if we like it, right? For their next trick, the Democrats "lost" 2 years of emails that were under subpoena. I don't understand why you and so many others still trust them and promote them.

1

Dan Shores 6 months ago

Great point Scott and I was just about to bring that up. Republicans are trying to make it more difficult to vote than to buy a gun. The problem with a government issued photo ID is that this can be very difficult for the poor and elderly to come by. Those of us who drive, already have a drivers license with a photo, but people who can't afford a car, or the elderly who haven't driven in years don't necessarily have a photo ID. Since there is almost zero, if not in fact zero incidence of voter fraud with the current registration system, why is it so important to change and pass a new law. The reason is that most poor and elderly tend to vote Democratic, and these voter ID laws are a clear attempt to suppress the vote. This tactic has been publicly admitted to by members of the republican party so it is no secret. With respect to gun laws, just saying no to any from of restriction or background checks or limitations on magazine capacity is not a solution to the alarming increase in gun related violence and mass shootings. Something must be done, and I would suggest that if background checks and limitations on magazine capacity are not a start in the right direction that you come up with some better ideas. Saying no is not a better idea. Dave, I think you can see by Ken's response to my post what we are dealing with here when merely asking legitimate questions of candidates. This kind of negative, cynical, misrepresentation of opposing views and disrespectful attitude is one of the reasons that you party is polling at record low levels never before seen in it's history. You seem like a reasonable gentleman and I hope if elected, you can bring some dignity back to what was once a great political party. The questions I have asked are legitimate and are legitimate concerns of mine and the people of the state of Colorado and I hope you will respond. Thank you.

1

Ken Mauldin 6 months ago

C'mon, November! I wonder how many seats in the House and Senate will be gained by conservatives and lost by liberal Democrats?

The main problem conservatives had in the past was poor communication skills. They had a really hard time communicating what bad things would happen to America if we trusted liberal Democrats with control of national public policy. Unfortunately for the liberal Democrats, it's only hard to run against Santa Claus as long as people believe in Santa Claus. That's the gift of liberal dishonesty and incompetence; that each and every day fewer people believe that Santa Claus can magically create and deliver toys to the children.

A majority of people are finally starting to see liberal Democrats for what they are and they're not happy with them. It's accepted among liberal pundits that they'll lose seats in both the House and the Senate in the November elections for holding such extreme views that are out of touch with a majority of American voters. The only debate is over how deep the losses will be.

0

john bailey 6 months ago

how could any hard working American not want free stuff , oh that's right there are no hard working Americans left.......but for a few. why would the left worry about their voting base when they have all these illegals pouring over our southern border.....I would say that Kens answers to knuckle heads questions are pretty accurate . damn , how'd we end up getting tied in that WC game , freeking nuts huh ?

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 6 months ago

Play to the final whistle. That goal just before the final whistle was to quote Jon Bon Jovi. a "shot through the heart"

0

Scott Wedel 6 months ago

The main problem conservatives had in the past was poor communication skills.

Yeah, it is a problem when conservatives open their mouths and say what they think. That tends to turn off women voters, young voters, and minority voters.

1

Ken Mauldin 6 months ago

Scott: The conservatives have sure opened their mouths a lot lately and said what they think about; Fast and Furious, IRS targeting, Benghazi, handing terrorists back to the Taliban, handing Iraq back to the ISIS terrorist, and the millions of families losing health insurance and access to their doctors. Those pesky conservatives just won't shut up. How many seats do you predict they'll pick up in November?

1

Dan Kuechenmeister 6 months ago

Ken, All good points but quite frankly I don't think the low information voters care. They just want their "free" stuff and will vote for the candidate that promises them more "free" stuff. It is a sad state of affairs. Great nations have seen their greatness dissipate through out history. Greece, Rome, Spain, Portugal, England to name a few have "ruled" the world. The US is in the twilight of it's greatness. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" Santayana. According to Treasurydirect.gov the national debt was over 17.5 trillion dollars as of June 19,2014 but "what difference at this point does it make". The US is burning while our government fiddles.

3

Scott Wedel 6 months ago

Ken,

Yep, promoting scandals is precisely the sort of communications that has failed to persuade voters.

And what are the Republicans' plans?

Dave Moloney says "I will support the responsible development of Colorado’s energy resources while protecting the environment," Well, isn't that the drilling regulations that were passed that takes steps to limit pollution at the well?

And Republicans used to be for better educational standards and now that Common Core is a better standard, the Republicans now seem to be all over themselves stopping it. Personally, I don't see why they don't support it and wish to strengthen it to use it to get rid of poorly performing teachers.

Oh well, I predict that Colorado will reelect Democrats DMB, Udall and Hickenlooper.

1

Ken Mauldin 6 months ago

Scott: I really like it that you don't give up. Despite our differences, I respect you for that.

Conservatives promote scandals? I suppose that's better than causing them, like the liberal democrats do. Considering that a scandal is defined as "an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage" I think all of the issues that I've Iisted are true scandals in the literal sense of the word and that it would be a mistake not to point them out and pursue criminal charges where the evidence leads to criminal actions.

Your premise that Common Core is an improvement is a fallacy that's quickly being recognized by average people everywhere. I don't believe that removing algebra from 8th grade math was a leap forward that helps our children remain internationally competitive in math and science. Nor do I believe that we needed a new way to teach 11 year olds how to calculate 357+92 in so many abstract steps that parents with a Masters in Engineering can't help their 4th grader in math without learning the new methods. I have 3 kids in elementary school and you would probably be shocked at how ridiculous the math has become. I have personal, first-hand experience that Common Core is one more federal disaster that will be undone by more reasonable people in time. Something that harmful and counter-productive will not stand and the breakdown of states backing out has already begun.

As for local predictions, Hickenlooper has already started his "gun control was a mistake and I only signed the Bill into law because a staffer promised that I would" tour. The influx of liberals who wrecked California and have escaped to Colorado only to vote the same way will keep the gubernatorial race close. Otherwise, Hickenlooper wouldn't stand a chance of being re-elected. The Senate race is really tight and the democrats have a tremendous amount of baggage. I predict that Colorado will reward Udall for his loyalty to liberal causes with a one-way ticket back to Eldorado Springs.

0

john bailey 6 months ago

boy I sure miss ol Roy Romer , very likeable fella , met him and ran into him at many a Rockies game....about as down to earth a fella as you'll ever meet.......hum , Californians that wrecked their state and escaped to here , ya don't say, it only took a short 30 years but yeah their taking Colorado right down the tubes too.....idiots

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.