Letters: 'I will not vote for you, Cindy'
Metro Pulse
Friday, June 13, 2008
STORY TOOLS
More Letters
- Letters to the Editor: Drinking is 'bloody good fun'
- Letters: Is Rev. Wright right?
- Let's push for real healthcare reform
Share and Enjoy [?]
I see Cindy Carlisle is proposing to give "undocumented students" taxpayer-subsidized tuition in college. This means that illegal aliens who snuck into this country will recieve a huge monetary benefit compliments of the already hurting middle-class taxpayers. Gee thanks, Cindy. Liberals like Cindy are always very generous -- with someone else's money, of course.It seems to me that policies like this can only worsen the already critical border-crossing problem by giving an extra incentive to anyone wanting to sneak in to USA. If 12 million illegals isn't enough, this will surely result in more flooding in. I would suggest that if Cindy and others like her want to help illegal aliens that she do so with her own money, and have some respect for the taxpayer for a change. I will not vote for you, Cindy.
STORY TOOLS
More Letters
- Letters to the Editor: Drinking is 'bloody good fun'
- Letters: Is Rev. Wright right?
- Let's push for real healthcare reform
Share and Enjoy [?]
Bob Waber
Boulder
MCGRATH'S OWN POLITICAL BIGOTRY
For the sake of our image, Mayor Shaun McGrath proposes that City Council be "more selective about policies we pursue," particularly national policies. McGrath recently was against a symbolic resolution to impeach president Bush and a proposal to allow legal immigrants to serve on City boards. He said that it was unwise to spend such political capital for what I can only assume he considers trivial matters. I, for one, am not willing to abdicate my moral beliefs or pass on good policy to placate "prejudice." McGrath gives examples of political observations made by conservative extremists that he himself describes as "political bigotry" and "politically motivated." But it appears to me that McGrath is also politically motivated. He goes on to take credit for numerous accolades received by the city, as if he has been on the cutting edge or progressive, while advocating a form of his own "political bigotry."He warns us this "bias," the belief that this is a very liberal town out of touch with reality, "can dissuade tourists from coming to town, and keep companies from doing business here."If that is the case, so be it. Are we interested in attracting more "bigots" to town?A leader of our community should defend "liberal Boulder" by instituting progressive policies and not cow tow and pretend that our city is something it is not. What is unsaid, but inferred, is that this is another example of Mayor McGrath's continuous attempts to stifle dissent within our own community. He has his own "biases." He was instrumental in putting an end to our public access television station 54, where residents had a voice, I believe, because it was a threat to his own "politically motivated" ambitions, perhaps, for higher office. Is it possible his political ambitions having to do with state and national office is the motivating factor having to do with his unwillingness to further more progressive policies?With professional politicians and beauracrats like Shaun McGrath political maneuvering and image often override sensible policy making.I'd rather have a Council that fulfills the wishes of the community than act out of fear of a little "Boulder bashing." Perhaps, Shaun should please his constituents rather people who don't live here or his employers at the Western Governors Association.
Seth Brigham
Boulder
BOB KINSEY -- THE REAL PROGRESSIVE CANDIDATE FOR U.S. SENATE
Now that Mark Udall and Bob Schaffer have officially announced their campaigns for the U.S. Senate seat from Colorado, they join the only real progressive in the race: the Green Party's Bob Kinsey. Playing the usual cynical, big-money game, Udall is re-positioning himself as a centrist. He claims to be against the occupation of Iraq "now draining $3 billion from our treasury every week" but has voted for every single bill to fund the war. He refuses to defend our constitution by holding the President and Vice President accountable for their high crimes and misdemeanors. He even wants to increase the size of our military, even though the U.S. spends more than all other nations on Earth combined! In short, Udall talks a good game, but does little beyond promote himself for higher office.
In contrast, former schoolteacher, minister. Marine and long-time peace activist Bob Kinsey is fighting for an immediate end to the war in Iraq, opposes a new war with Iran, supports impeachment, and backs universal health care. If you are sick of the false choice between the Repugnant and Demagogic parties, find out more at www.kinseyforsenate.org.
Eric Fried
Fort Collins
KUCINICH HAS THE GUTS
I guess Dennis Kucinich is the only person in the house that takes his oath to defend the constitution seriously. Our other representatives need to reclaim their honor and their oath by supporting the Kucinich articles of impeachment and throwing the Bush bums out!!
John Broadwater
Boulder
WHAT'S THE STORY NANCY?
It is almost inconceivable that Nancy Pelosi, as the leader of the Democratic majority of the House for the past year and a half, has made not even a symbolic gesture toward impeaching the most arrogant, incompetent, corrupt, and criminal President and Vice-President in the history of the United States. I salute Dennis Kucinich for his bravery and integrity, and ask each of you to lend your support and energy to this long-overdue Impeachment effort.Mrs. Pelosi, your inaction is a shameful betrayal of the millions of voters who gave Democrats the majority in the 2006 election for the explicit purpose of ending the Iraq war and bringing these criminals to account at last.
Frank Berliner
Boulder
MUSGRAVE SHOULD RETURN DONATIONS
Back in 2003, a barrel of oil traded for what, $40. Now, it's $136. A gallon of gas cost less than $2.00. Now it's over $4.00. Exxon posted a $40.66 billion profit last year, just one of many oil corporations. The number of refineries operating in the U.S. has halved in that time frame. Rep. Musgrave's column, printed in numerous newspapers the week of June 9, 2008 in the 4th district, neglected to mention she has received $165,000 in campaign contributions from the oil industry, and Exxon has been the largest contributor.2003: Musgrave voted for the Energy Plan that provided $18.7 billion in tax breaks for the oil industry. (House Vote 145 HR 6, 4/11/03)2005: Musgrave voted for the 2005 Energy Bill that contained $14.5 billion in tax breaks for the oil industry.(HR 6 Roll Call Vote 445, 7/28/05; Congressional Research Service)2005: Musgrave voted against raising average fuel economy of automobiles from 25 miles-per-gallon to 33 mpg. (Roll Call 121, HR 6, 2/20/2005)2006: Musgrave voted for extending the Bush Tax Cuts that included $5 billion in tax breaks for the oil industry. (House Vote 135, HR 4297, 5/10/2006, CQ Floor Votes; Washington Post, 4/26/06)2007: Musgrave voted against a new energy policy that limited tax breaks for big oil. The resulting revenue would have been deposited into a new renewable energy account for research. (House Vote 1177, 12/18/07) I call on Rep. Musgrave to return donations from the oil industry. If she is really ready to take on Washington and Big Oil, this would be a really easy way to demonstrate that.
Ann Molison
Fort Collins
MORE ON KUCINICH
That brave and persistent Rep. Kucinich has given us all one last chance to DO SOMETHING on behalf of the abuse of power and criminal behavior of this administration. The whole world is watching. This country no longer has the self esteem earned and deserved. This congress has been totally negligent in fulfilling its responsibility to the citizens of this once great country. While the impeachment process may not put "them away" for the years they deserve for all their many atrocities, in is necessary to pursue to renew our belief and respect in justice.
Don Devereux
Golden
Comments
Posted by darkcloud on July 24, 2008 at 6:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Since "Letters" are now under Biz and Tech, and nobody responds to any, this.
The Carlisle-Heath race for the state Senate got a brief blur of coverage after their debate and then vanished. Given the rising importance – today, again – of Colorado’s oil shale and future votes about its possible mining, this race deserves more attention. It’s important if we value our environment and want it protected.
In debate, Heath made irrelevant remarks about his opponent’s late father-in-law and his business connections. He somehow felt this a justifiable response because Heath’s own Green and progressive values aren’t buffed by his particular corporate involvements.
Heath claimed Carlisle and her husband, Baine Kerr, obtain income from Kerr-McGee, apparently because of the name but not true. This error sorrowfully drawn to his attention, he offered a widely distributed apology with a replacement falsehood, saying he had meant Pennzoil, which Mr. Kerr’s father had once represented as counsel, but still not a source of income to Kerr or the actual candidate, Carlisle.
Heath said his financial disclosure was true and complete. Kerr, in his effortless ColoradoPols.com response, casts doubt.
Heath receives, apparently, significant compensation and stock awards from Allied Motion Technologies, IMA Financial, and others, but they aren’t noted under income on his signed disclosure form. Also, he told the debate audience he had had no contact with anyone at CACI for ten years. Curious, because he served on CACI's board between 1998-2002, years which compose four of the last ten.
Perhaps he doesn’t want it known he’s currently in the employ of entities that give Greenies gas and Progressives pause while claiming to champion each group himself. Something. But when, almost inevitably, this state is forced to look again at oil shale mining and its residue, Carlisle has the best record of environmental responsibility.
Dark Cloud
(Requires free registration.)
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.