Printed letters, July 1, 2010
Attack on Romanoff makes little sense
One must wonder why Rick Wagner would go to the trouble of trying to discourage Andrew Romanoff in the Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate. I am sure he must realize that no Democrat (certainly none I know) gives two cents for his opinion. So, I am puzzled over his column on June 16 in The Daily Sentinel, “Romanoff continues to be snubbed by his own party.”
Following a sneering and insulting recap of Andrew’s road to the Senate race, this political hit piece finishes with, “All in all, Romanoff might not want to throw out those job applications quite yet.” So, you mean to say, that elections aren’t over until the votes are counted? Really? That’s Rick’s point? Or is he implying that Andrew is overconfident? Let me assure you, that is not the case.
The former Colorado House speaker understands that big money is the single biggest reason our government and our elections are failing us. Andrew is one of only two candidates who are taking no corporate money for their campaigns. This puts him at a huge disadvantage to his patrician opponent, who has millions in out-of-state dollars from banks and oil companies to saturate the airwaves. Overconfident? No, I don’t think so.
Continuing to look for a salient point, I arrived at a “Eureka moment” in getting what Wagner is selling. I don’t know whom he supports in the Senate race, but I’m guessing it ain’t Jane Norton, who is getting clobbered by tea party favorite, Ken Buck. My suspicion is that Wagner sees the writing on the wall. Buck can beat Bennet for the same reasons he will likely defeat Norton, but that anti-insider, anti-big money sentiment won’t work against the only true “grass roots” candidate in the race — Andrew Romanoff.
Maes more experienced in running a business
Robert Brown’s recent letter to the editor is correct. Scott McInnis is certainly experienced. However, some of his experiences are not included in Brown’s letter or in McInnis’ mailings I have received.
Missing is his experience as a lobbyist after his years as a Colorado state legislator and as a U.S. congressman. In spite of his statement in a speech at the State Assembly, where he said his voting record proves he is conservative, his record proves otherwise. Instead of taking the taxpayers’ side, 100 percent of the time, his voting record ranged from a low of 15 percent to 61 percent from 1983 to the end of 2003.
Mr. McInnis has a great deal of experience in the legislative branch of our government, but is running for an executive position. The legislative branch of our government was formed to make our laws. One of the main functions of the executive branch of our government — the governor — is to make sure state governments operate within a balanced budget, similar to a business.
Dan Maes is not an experienced politician but is definitely an experienced businessman. Addressing the position that our present governor has put Colorado into is going to take someone who can get rid of a lot of deadwood that has been added, over the last year alone. I think Maes has the ability to do this and that he should not be overlooked just because he is not an experienced politician.
GEORGE LEWIS Clifton
Individual responsibility needed in energy solution
I was a writer for Shale Country Magazine back in the 1970s, when oil shale was the latest and greatest solution to energy independence, and I still remember Armand Debeque showing me old newspapers from decades before with headlines heralding the same news being printed then.
Not much has changed, except that our water reserves are less and our dependence on oil much greater, despite Gary Hart’s very clear and prophetic warnings that we needed to take individual responsibility for our addiction to oil.
Where is the overdue discussion of our individual responsibilities as stewards of our limited resources? There are no “miracle cures” or easy fixes. I think perhaps a national 12-step program is in order.
PAULA MASSA ANDERSON