Dan Maes | Liberty on the Rocks™ Denver

Vote your conscience.

Barring a miracle just short of a virgin birth, John Hickenlooper will be the next governor of Colorado. You do not have to be concerned with your vote “spoiling” the election and “throwing” it to a progressive Democrat. The GOP has already taken care of that.

Republican nominee Dan Maes’ problems are well-documented. He has been abandoned by the GOP. Beauprez, Brown, Andrews and Wadhams made it official.

Tom Tancredo abandoned the GOP, the party that elected him U.S. Congressman, and joined something called the “American Constitution Party” so he could either force Maes out or ensure his defeat. He did not accomplish the former. He has accomplished the latter.

If either Maes or Tancredo satisfy you, by all means, vote for him. If neither do, you are free to vote your conscience. If you believe in small government – both economically and socially – vote for Libertarian candidate for governor, Jaimes Brown.

Vote your conscience. What a radical notion.

“Party over person?” Not according to Brown, Beauprez and Andrews.

Hopefully, Mike Rosen’s utterly absurd “party over person” mantra can be put to rest.

Rosen and other GOP apologists have recited the line like a Buddhist koan.

Now that highly respected Republican patriarchs are calling for their duly nominated gubernatorial candidate, Dan Maes, to step down, will Rosen cling to his mantra like Louise clinging to the steering wheel in her final scene with Thelma?

First, former Senator Hank Brown withdrew his endorsement, and declared “I’m beginning to find that (Maes’) explanations are not adequate.” Brown is now “looking around” for a candidate to support.

Then former Congressman Bob Beauprez advised that “If Dan really is committed to doing the best for Colorado, as well as for the GOP, he ought to take serious inventory and see if this isn’t the time to do the noble thing.”

Now former Colorado Senate President John Andrews has declared that “[a]s a conscientious Republican who earlier voted for Dan, I cannot support a manifestly unfit nominee.” He said he will write in Jane Norton.

These respected Republicans have rejected the laughable “party over person” mantra. All principled people – regardless of political affiliation – should reject it.

I applaud and respect Brown, Beauprez and Andrews for their rejection of the mantra. However, I believe Dan Maes should abide by HIS principles and stay in the race. He won the GOP nomination fair and square. He worked hard to earn the nod. He has overcome numerous obstacles to attain the nomination. He played by ALL the rules.

He should make the GOP accept reality and ignore those calling for him to quit.

Dan Maes, Tambor Williams and all that is wrong with politics…

According to the Denver Post, Dan Maes, GOP nominee for Colorado Governor, is defending Tambor Williams as his choice for Lt. Governor. (See “Maes tries to ease supporters’ anxiety over running mate“).

Williams has been criticized, among other things, for her support of Refs C & D when she was a member of Bill Owens’ cabinet. Maes sent an email to supporters addressing those concerns.

According to the Post, Maes’

“… e-mail says Williams, as a Cabinet member under then-Gov. Bill Owens, privately opposed the referendums but had to support them publicly because her boss did.”

This type of attitude is the problem. Tambor Williams is just one example of thousands. It is not fair to single her out. She is just another career politician, assimilated into party politics, where party unity is subservient to truth and principle.

If one does not believe in something, but publicly espouses it for private gain, that person is a hypocrite. Or perhaps a liar. Such conduct should not be excused in the name of political expediency.

If a person is asked to support a position contrary to one’s beliefs, a person of principle says, “no, I will not compromise my principles for your political gain.” A resignation should then be offered.

We, as an electorate, accept this unprincipled conduct. We get what we deserve: unprincipled politicians.

Tancredo isn’t “stealing” any votes from anyone.

According to the Denver Post’s Christopher Osher, who wrote a feature on GOP candidate for Governor Dan Maes,

Maes must work to beat Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper on the Democratic side as Tom Tancredo steals votes that would normally go to the Republican…

(See “Maes’ outsider campaign draws voters fed up with status quo.”)

I realize “stealing” votes is a metaphor, but it is a bad one.

“Stealing” is to take something that belongs to another without permission. The implication that Tancredo, or any third party, “steals” votes is blatantly incorrect.

People, as individuals, own their votes. Dan Maes does not “own” Republican votes. The state party does not “own” Republican votes. If Colorado Republicans choose to vote for someone else, they have not “stolen” a thing.

If party members think Tancredo is “stealing” their votes, the party believes they own those votes and someone is wrongfully taking them. The very concept is arrogant.

Voters can not “steal” something they own.

Today’s newspeak

Republican governor candidate Dan Maes was quoted in today’s Denver Post as saying, “The next governor has to be able to generate income for the state, and I have proven I can do that.” (See “Maes claims, income at odds.”

Governments do not “generate income.” Governments take income away from those that generate income. I’m sure Dan knows that, but I believe the wording is important.

We need to use words correctly, and refuse to use newspeak. Wikepedia sums up George Orwell’s thoughts on newspeak thusly:

Orwell believed that, because this writing was intended to hide the truth rather than express it, the language used was necessarily vague or meaningless. This unclear prose was a “contagion” which had spread even to those who had no intent to hide the truth, and it concealed a writer’s thoughts from himself and others.

- Politics and the English Language.

I am sure Maes has “no intent to hide the truth,” which makes it all the more important to point it out when he does.

Fight newspeak. Use plain English.

Why McInnis might ask you to vote for Maes this weekend.

The Colorado GOP State Assembly is this weekend.

Any candidate (that chooses to participate in the assembly) that gets 30% or more of the vote will make the primary ballot.

If a candidate does not participate, the candidate may gather signatures to make the primary ballot. For instance, U.S. Senate candidate Jane Norton is not participating in the assembly for strategic reasons. Her primary rival, Ken Buck, is participating. Both will be on the primary ballot.

The Governor’s race, however, presents an interesting strategic choice. GOP establishment candidate Scott McInnis is by far the favorite to win the nomination and take on Democrat John Hickenlooper. However, he faces two challengers. Only one, Dan Maes, is participating in the assembly. If Maes doesn’t get 30% of the vote, he is done.

Joe Gschwendter, a relative latecomer to the race, will not participate in the assembly but will petition on to the primary ballot. Gschwendter, according to sources, has far more campaign money than Maes and might raise enough to put up a reasonable effort against McInnis.

Both Gschwendter and Maes position themselves as anti-establishment candidates. They hope to ride the current anti-establishment wave to victory over McInnis.

This presents an interesting strategic question for McInnis:

Would he be better off in a head-to-head matchup with Gschwendter or in a three way race that includes Maes?

I submit the answer is clear. In a head-to-head race, all the anti-establishment vote will be consolidated against McInnis. McInnis would still be the favorite, but he will want to avoid consolidated opposition if he can. His chances for success go up if the anti-establishment vote is split between between Gschwendter and Maes.

McInnis WANTS Maes on the primary ballot.

Therefore, what if the McInnis vote counters determine Maes is just shy of 30% at the assembly? Would it not make strategic sense for McInnis to have some of his delegates switch their votes to Maes to insure a three-way race?

Makes sense to me.

Follow up to the Colorado caucus results

My predictions (as I predicted!) on the recent Colorado caucuses were mostly wrong. (See “The Big Government Republican Politburo has made its selections, but they’ll let you vote anyway.”)

I did not anticipate how well either Democrat Andrew Romanoff or Republican Ken Buck would do as the underdog in their respective Senate races. Romanoff beat Democratic establishment pick and incumbent Senator Michael Bennet, while Buck was in a virtual tie with Big Government Republican Politburo choice Jane Norton. (See “Underdogs Buck, Romanoff make strong inroads at caucuses.”) (Although I did get the Republican governor’s race correct – Dan Maes was stomped by Big Government Republican Politburo selection Scott McInnis).

I have learned a lesson. I learned that the caucuses are meaningless. In both of the major parties, the activists show up in force at the caucuses. They represent an almost insignificant number of voters, but they are active. Hence the name “activists.”

Nevertheless, the Big Government Republican Politburo will not be defeated by mere activists. The BGRP has the money. The BGRP has the power. The BGRP’s annointed one, Jane Norton, will be the Republican Party’s nominee, regardless of the number of Ken Buck activists.

Likewise, Bennet will be the Democratic nominee. The irony is that I bet almost all of Buck’s supporters would agree with my assessment of the Democratic primary, yet they fail to see the parallels within their own party.

If you want real choice and a return to limited government, work outside the two party system. (For that matter, if you want single payer health care, or even a public option, you will not get it from the Democrats. David Sirota and his progressive statists should work outside the two party system, as well.)

The Democrats and Republicans have had control of the government since the Civil War. Their is no rational basis to believe things will change in 2010. The government has consistently grown since the 1860’s. The faith some have in the two party system to effectuate change is misplaced. And it is faith. It is not based on any objective standards.

Many in the Republican Party point to Ronald Reagan’s two terms as a the height of Republican success. Yet the fact is government did not contract during Reagan’s terms. It continued to grow. Is it not obvious? If the zenith of modern Republican success resulted in more Big Government, why support the party?

Seriously. Why?

I challenge the supporters of Ken Buck and Dan Maes to vote their consciences in November. Do not vote for BGRP choices just because they have an “R” by their name. That perpetuates the problem.

Be part of the solution. Reject the party apparatus that maintains the status quo.

At Least Dan Maes Answered the Questions

The following article originally was published February 1 by Grand Junction’s Free Press.

At least Dan Maes answered the questions

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

Recently the Supreme Court struck down part of the McCain-Feingold censorship law in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The decision is tragic because the Court only partially restored the First Amendment, and apparently four of the justices cannot comprehend the simple phrase, “Congress shall make no law…”

Leftist critics of the ruling argue that, while a lone individual might have some rights to free speech, individuals do not have the right to freely associate to express themselves. Further, these critics claim, you have no firm right to spend your own money on expression.

To grasp the left’s hypocrisy on finances, just ask a critic of the ruling whether the right to get an abortion would be preserved if women and clinics were forbidden from spending money on abortions. (Eugene Volokh raised this point.)

Regarding this case the left is perfectly consistent with its Marxist roots. Marx wrote, “The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.”

In simpler terms, you are just too stupid to independently evaluate a film or ad funded by a corporation. You need the benevolent nannies of the left to help you think straight.

Unfortunately, some people do everything they can to prove Marx right. They thoughtlessly buy junk just because the idiot box or their friends tell them to. They never read great books or otherwise develop their reasoning skills. They vote for candidates based on appearance, smooth talk, and hysterical smear campaigns against the other guy.

However, trying to save people from their own stupidity only entrenches stupidity. People cannot choose wisely if they lack the capacity to choose badly. In terms of free speech, people must be free to say and believe stupid things, if we wish to preserve the right and ability to say and believe profundities.

The law properly guards against fraudulent speech. You can’t legally tell someone a used car has only ten thousand miles on it when it actually has a hundred thousand. Nor can you make up lies about a candidate. Established law already addresses such matters.

Aside from libel, however, people should be free to say whatever they want about candidates (using their own resources), whenever they want, and with whomever they want. That is precisely what the First Amendment is all about.

We can’t blame bad government on advertisements. After all, smear campaigns work only if voters fail to critically judge them. It is you, the individual voter, who must carefully evaluate claims, do some background research, and seek the broader context. If you fail to do so, censorship laws will not save the republic but will only further erode its foundation.

Let us make 2010 the year when candidates articulate their views on the issues and voters decide accordingly. Let us make this election about ideas, principles, and policies, not hair dye, cowboy hats, and vocal timbre.

It is in this spirit that we introduced our Candidate Survey, found at http://tinyurl.com/cosurvey10. Unfortunately, as of our deadline, we had heard from only two candidates running for governor or U.S. Senate. Dan Maes, the Republican challenger to Scott McInnis, said he’d answer the survey and followed through on his word. We also heard from independent candidate Rich Hand. You can find their responses linked from the original survey.

Though we originally contacted all the major-party candidates (or their representatives) for those offices by January 13, our initial correspondence did not make it to the right parties in the case of McInnis and Democratic top gun John Hickenlooper. While representatives of both candidates have now confirmed receipt of the survey, they have not committed to answering it. We encourage readers to ask these candidates to answer the survey.

Maes is the underdog, and we disagree with a number of his views. Generally, though, we are impressed by his responsiveness, straight talk, sincerity, and hard work.

Maes is a pretty solid fiscal conservative. He thinks the state should cut taxes and permit the traditional energy industry to thrive (thereby also increasing the tax flow from energy). He is too unfriendly to immigrants in our view. Disappointingly, he said campaign censorship laws should be “maintained,” and he thinks flag desecration should be Constitutionally outlawed.

Most disturbing is Maes endorsement of the “personhood” measure, which if fully implemented would outlaw nearly all abortions, outlaw common forms of birth control, restrict fertility treatments, and subject women to severe legal interference.

Maes also punted on several questions. For example, we asked, “Should abortion be legal in cases of rape or incest?” Maes answered, “It already is.” Cute. Perhaps Maes would care to answer the question next time: what does he think the law should say?

At least Maes answered (most of) the questions. That’s a start.

Dan Maes: Colorado 2010 Candidate Survey

Following are the unedited answers of Curtis Harris to the Colorado 2010 Candidate Survey. Questions are in bold.

SUMMARY

In a Twitter-length reply (140 characters maximum), please state why you are running for political office.

Colorado is heading down the same path as Washington and it must be stopped and turned around. I have the skills and conservative values to do it.

ECONOMIC ISSUES

* Should the federal or state government spend money in an attempt to “stimulate” the economy? If so, on what sorts of projects?

No. It should cut spending, increase energy income, and taxes

[January 25 Update: Maes sent in the following clarification: "Please correct/modify delete 'and taxes' as it looks like I want to increase taxes. The message was to increase energy income and energy severance taxes to the state."]

* Should tax dollars be directed toward energy projects, tourism, or any other form of business subsidies?

Only if the voters approve doing it.

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights be kept completely intact? If not, how should it be altered?

Yes.

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should Amendment 23 be repealed, maintained, or modified?

Repealed as first choice. Suspended in Ref. C fashion as a second.

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should any particular state taxes or fees (such as the state corporate income tax or the subjects of the tax-cutting initiatives) be repealed or reduced? Should any be added or increased?

FASTER should be repealed.

* Should state or federal spending (depending on which office you seek) be higher or lower than it is currently?

State should be lower.

* Should the state or federal minimum wage (depending on which office you seek) be repealed, maintained, or increased?

Maintained and re-examined based on economic realities.

* Should college education be subsidized by tax dollars?

Yes.

* Should antitrust law or its enforcement be changed?

Need more clarification.

SOCIAL AND CHURCH/STATE ISSUES

* What do you believe is meant by the “separation of church and state,” and do you endorse it?

The federal government is not to create or endorse a national religion/church. I would enforce that.

* Should religious institutions receive tax dollars for providing welfare or other faith-based services?

* Should the teaching of creationism or Intelligent Design be subsidized by tax dollars?

All public education is paid for by tax dollars. Thus, if the above were part of a school’s curriculum it would be.

* Should tax-funded schools establish a period of permitted or required prayer?

I support prayer in schools but no specific period of time should be required or encouraged. There is enough spare time in public school schedules already w/o crating more.

* Should government officials promote religiously oriented displays and comments on government property and at government events?

It already does as part of our historic architecture which reflects the reality that our country was founded not on the principles of men, but on those God given principles captured in our founding documents by men.

* Do you support gay marriage?

No.

* If you answered no to the question above, do you support domestic partnerships, civil unions, or comparable legal recognition of gay couples?

I would be willing to discuss civil remedies in areas that gays feel they are not equally protected.

* Should gay couples be allowed to adopt children by the same standards as heterosexual couples?

* Should government never, always, or sometimes mandate parental notification and consent before a minor may legally obtain an abortion, and, if sometimes, under what conditions?

Always.

* Should government mandate waiting periods or ultrasounds before a woman may legally obtain an abortion?

Yes/no.

* Do you endorse the “personhood” measure that may appear on the 2010 ballot?

Yes.

* Should abortion be legal in cases of fetal deformity?

It already is.

* Should abortion be legal in cases of rape or incest?

It already is.

* Should abortion be legal in cases of risk to the woman’s life, as determined by the health professional selected by that woman?

It already is.

* Should elective abortion be legal?

It already is.

* If you believe that abortion should be legally restricted, what criminal penalties do you advocate for a woman and her doctor for obtaining or facilitating an illegal abortion?

No comment.

* Would execution ever be an appropriate penalty for obtaining or facilitating illegal abortions?

No.

* Should types of birth control be legal that may prevent a fertilized egg or zygote from implanting in the uterus?

I support the laws as they stand.

* Should fertility treatments be legal that may result in the freezing or destruction of a fertilized egg or zygote?

You ask way to many questions about an issue that is just not a priority at this time.

* Should research involving the use of embryonic stem cells be legal?

Not if there are other viable solutions.

* Should abortions or embryonic stem cell research be subsidized by tax dollars?

No and no.

IMMIGRATION

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should Colorado government force employers to verify with the federal government the legal status of potential employees, and, if so, what penalties should apply for failure to do so?

Yes and 10,000.00 per incident.

* Should federal or state tax-funded benefits (depending on which office you seek), including K-12 education, be extended only to U.S. citizens, to legal immigrants and guest workers, or to everyone in the U.S. including illegal immigrants?

They already are per federal law. It should stop at all levels.

PROPERTY RIGHTS

* What restrictions, if any, should be placed on the use of eminent domain?

It should be limited to cases where exercising it is indisputably for public use only. I use the word “use” versus interest or benefit.

* Do you endorse the use of eminent domain in the case of the Pinon Canyon military expansion? Do you support the military expansion if it does not involve eminent domain?

I do not “endorse” the use of it anywhere. I would support it reluctantly only if the Army can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they have no other options but to do so. I support a mutual agreement between willing sellers and leasers, and the Army as a first option.

* Should the Endangered Species Act be altered or differently enforced?

No opinion.

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should the smoking ban be maintained, expanded, or repealed? Should it apply to on-stage performances?

No opinion.

BILL OF RIGHTS

* Should McCain-Feingold and state campaign finance restrictions be repealed, maintained, or expanded?

Maintained. Moot now, isn’t it?

* Should the federal government control what radio or television stations may broadcast?

They already do via the FTC.

* Should the FTC’s rules regarding blogger endorsements be rescinded?

* Should students with licenses be legally permitted to carry concealed handguns on the property of tax-subsidized colleges?

Yes

* Should additional restrictions be added (or repealed) on gun ownership? Please specify.

* Do you believe that desecration of the U.S. flag should be outlawed by Constitutional amendment?

Yes

* Do you believe that pornography or obscene materials involving consenting adults should be legally restricted?

It already is.

OTHER

* Should state or federal laws (depending on which office you seek) pertaining to marijuana be altered, and, if so, how?

Yes. Med. mar. is a disaster and must be regulated like a pharmaceutical.

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should rules pertaining to petitioners be altered, and, if so, how?

No.

* If there is any important issue that you believe we have missed, please state what it is and state your position on it.

Dan Maes Gets Real; He and Acree Talk Health

“Some guy named Dan Maes also remains in the race, and he has about the same chance of becoming the next governor of Colorado as I do.”

“Anybody who thinks Dan Maes has any chance of winning the Republican primary and beating Bill Ritter is simply delusional.”

“Dan Maes doesn’t have a chance in hell of becoming the next governor of Colorado.”

Who wrote these nasty things about hard-working gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes? And what did Maes ever do to that vindictive SOB?

The lines are mine. And, while Maes has offered a pointed response, he’s taken my needling well. And I respect that. An underdog who can’t deal with people throwing scraps will never be anything more than an underdog.

Moreover, it seems like every political event I go to, Maes is there. I heard him give his stump speech last night at Liberty On the Rocks. I saw him Tuesday at the rally against Obama Care. I saw him last month at an Independence Institute holiday party, where Maes listened to my complaints for another twenty minutes or so. Maes takes questions — and answers them.

Meanwhile, this is the only sign I saw of Scott McInnis (the other Republican in the race) at Tuesday’s rally:

(In fairness, McInnis has given public addresses and uploaded some of these to YouTube.)

If memory serves, I first saw Maes June 27 of last year at an Aurora Republican Forum. What I recall from his speech that day is that there was nothing important to recall. LIghtweight, I thought. But last night I saw a candidate for governor. He talked energy. He can effectively challenge Governor Ritter’s “New Energy Economy” with the Real Energy Economy. He talked Constitutional restraints of federal power. He talked low taxes. He spoke with passion. He spoke from the heart.

What’s more, Maes is a genuine guy. He’s fun to talk to. He’s fun to listen to. He’s even fun to make fun of. McInnis, on the other hand, is well known for his testy personality and media meltdowns.

True, Maes has suffered from lackluster fundraising (though it seems to be picking up a bit). However, Maes also beat McInnis in the unscientific, skewed poll put out by the People’s Press Collective.

Delusional? No chance in hell? I was stunned that Ritter dropped out of the race. I thought Scott Brown didn’t have a chance in hell of winning his U.S. Senate race. Well, it looks like hell is freezing over and political probabilities must be tossed aside.

I would like to see a Maes/Hickenlooper showdown because I’d like to see two real guys, two businessmen, have a serious discussion about the important issues facing Colorado. (I’m sure Hickenlooper would also love to face that showdown.) With McInnis, I get the feeling that his main purpose is to package his message and play it safe. (McInnis could easily change my mind on this point simply by providing straightforward answers to the Armstrongs’ Colorado 2010 Candidate Survey). Moreover, last night I had a chance to chat briefly with Maes’s delightful wife and elder daughter, each of whom could be a major asset to his campaign if willing to play that role.

However, Maes has some serious problems. His lack of political experience translates to difficulty raising funds. His ideological problems are more serious.

While Maes is friendly toward free markets for a Republican, generally Republicans suck on economic liberty. I worry about three things from Maes.

First, Maes is fairly strong on property rights but not as strong as I’d like. He said that eminent domain “is a constitutionally acceptable process and should be applied on a case by case basis. Application of the practice should only be exercised when there is a clear and convincing case for a purely public use and benefit.” That’s better than most politicians on the subject. But, for me, the right answer is that eminent domain is always and everywhere a violation of property rights.

Second, while Maes has admirably taken a stand against corporate welfare, he is amenable to discriminatory taxation. My view is that, while existing tax breaks should not be removed, otherwise we should seek to establish tax parity, rather than punish some businesses more severely than others with higher taxes. Maes said, “Our state constitution clearly states we are not to make investments in private entities. I want to honor the spirit of our federal and state constitutions. I do see tax breaks as viable incentives to spur our economy.”

Third, while Maes opposed the federal health bills, he inconsistently advocates free markets in health. Here’s what he said on Tuesday:

Here is the worrisome line: “We need to keep health care within the free market system. But we’d have to encourage private industry to get serious about pre-existing conditions. If they don’t take on pre-existing conditions, then government has every right to do so. So I want to make sure private industry accommodates that need.”

Maes’s position is unclear to me. Either he is saying that insurance companies must be politically forced to ignore pre-existing conditions when accepting customers, or he is saying that tax dollars should fund government-run insurance that ignores pre-existing conditions (as Cover Colorado basically does now). The former position leads inexorably to an insurance mandate, as my dad and I have argued. (See also my earlier article.) I welcome Maes’s clarification of the matter.

Again, Maes is mostly good on fiscal matters, and I have no doubt he would outperform any Democrat (and most Republicans) on economics. But Maes has a much more serious problem: social issues.

Maes has endorsed the so-called “personhood” measure likely to appear on this fall’s ballot. This would ban all or almost all abortions if fully enforced. It would also outlaw forms of birth control (including the pill) and fertility care that may result in the destruction of a fertilized egg. Colorado voters overwhelmingly trounced the “personhood” measure in 2008, and Maes will make few political friends by supporting it.

Maes also said that marriage “is a privilege that is ordained in the Scripture.” However, last night he granted that “civil remedies” can solve the problems of homosexual romantic unions. He said churches should not be forced to conduct gay marriages, and with that point I fully agree.

Maes strikes me as a common-sense kind of guy, so I will be interested to hear how he responds to concerns about the horrific and far-reaching implications of the “personhood” measure.

Meanwhile, all I’ve heard from McInnis is an ambiguous claim that he’s “100 percent pro-life.” Does McInnis want to outlaw absolutely all abortions? Voters deserve to know this.

As Paul Hsieh has written, independent voters, especially in Colorado, “want the Democrats out of their pockets and the Republicans out of their bedrooms.”

For the first time I am very interested in following the Republican primary.

* * *

Also at Tuesday’s rally, State Representative Cindy Acree offered her take on health reform:

Acree wants “tax equity at the federal level” to allow people to buy insurance with pre-tax money. That’s fantastic. However, she also wants a “new delivery system for primary care all over the state with public-private partnerships.” That sound to me like more tax subsidies and government controls.

So, while Republicans rallied against the federal Democratic health bills, they hardly advocate consistently free markets in health care. Hopefully advocates of liberty will continue to persuade them.

Liberty on the Rocks™ Denver

Our Next Happy Hour

Event Calendar

Reason

Vote your conscience.

“Party over person?” Not according to Brown, Beauprez and Andrews.

Dan Maes, Tambor Williams and all that is wrong with politics…

Tancredo isn’t “stealing” any votes from anyone.

Today’s newspeak

Why McInnis might ask you to vote for Maes this weekend.

Follow up to the Colorado caucus results

At Least Dan Maes Answered the Questions

Dan Maes: Colorado 2010 Candidate Survey

Dan Maes Gets Real; He and Acree Talk Health

Help Liberty on the Rocks (Denver) Grow. Donate Today!

Get Happy Hour Reminders!

Login