Progress Now Action

Here are some Myths & Realities for drilling in Colorado:

Myth: Gas prices are high so we need more drilling to bring them down.

Reality: You have to look at this historically. We have more permits today and more wells in production in Colorado than ever before, yet we're paying record prices. Drilling more is not the answer.

Myth: We have to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Reality: The companies that are doing the drilling will get the best dollar possible for the oil being produced in Colorado. They have no interest in selling to us when they can ship the oil to China and sell it for $140 a barrel. Local production does not mean local consumption. As an example, people in Florida pay the same price for oranges that we do even though our oranges are shipped across the country. Floridians pay the same price that the orange companies can get for oranges anywhere else in the world.

Myth: Oil companies are not making record profits or their return on investment is not as big as they say.

Reality: According to their own presentations to stockholders and investors and their own financial statements, the oil and gas companies that drill in Colorado are making record profits. And their ROIs are enviable in any industry. The cost to take oil and natural gas out of the ground has not changed in ten years ($1.81 mcfl for natural gas and $10 a barrel for oil). Yet the prices are skyrocketing. Ten years ago, when it cost $10 to get a barrel out of the ground and the price was $20 a barrel--oil companies made $10 a barrel. Now that the price is $140 a barrel, the same company is making 13 times the profit.

Myth: The additional drilling is good for Colorado because it brings jobs.

Reality: Drilling does create jobs but those jobs are not being done by Coloradans who have been part and are staying in our communities. We are enticing people from elsewhere to come here earn money and spend it in other places. The additional drilling (and the additional workers) create an economic detriment to the local communities because the communities do not have the money to accommodate the extra people who are using local services like schools, roads, health care, etc. Ask any local mayor if the boom has been good for their town and every mayor will say no.

Here's a great post detailing the numerous flaws in McCain's healthcare plan. Give it a read while we wait to hear from Alan who had the pleasure of sitting through McCain's townhall on healthcare this morning.

Here's a snippet, but the whole thing is enlightening (in that scary sort of way).

McCain and his handlers knew they had to say something about health care. So they turned to their friends (and financial supporters) in the health care industry and the conservative think tanks. And they have adopted the most extreme right-wing ideological approach, premised on the idea that the big problem in health care is that Americans have too much insurance - in their words, we don't have enough "skin in the game" - and that only when we have to buy health care with money that comes directly out of our own pockets will consumers force doctors, hospitals and insurance companies to become more efficient.

So that's the theory. But it is contradicted by the facts. Most of us already pay part of our premiums out of our own pockets, and we increasingly have to shell out for co-pays in order to get to see a doctor. The result--in practice--is that most people, even those with good insurance, now think twice or three times about even getting regular preventive health checkups. Having lots of "skin in the game" has meant that millions of Americans don't get health care they need--and that's one of the big problems in U.S. health care driving costs up, not down.

The good folks up in Longmont are still working to establish open space on their eastern boarder as well as make sure the 4C/LifeBridge development doesn't cost their taxpayers millions of dollars.

From the Longmont Times-Call:

LONGMONT — Firestone and Longmont leaders might be ready to start negotiating an end to their border war.

Firestone Mayor Chad Auer gave a letter to Longmont Mayor Roger Lange on Tuesday pitching a possible deal that could end two months of wrangling over land on Longmont’s eastern boundary.

In the letter, Auer outlines a plan to allow Firestone to annex LifeBridge Christian Church’s Union property but still allow Longmont to keep a buffer between Firestone and Longmont.

It’s our best work to date. I really feel like it has a lot of win-wins in there,” Auer said Wednesday.

LifeBridge’s business organization, 4C, is willing to negotiate with Longmont to sell the church’s 120-acre parcel — land that surrounds the former Concepts Direct building on the northwest corner of Colo. Highway 119 and Fairview Street — to the city as open space, Auer wrote.

If the city buys that land from LifeBridge, then Dale Bruns and the six other owners of the Firelight Park parcel across the street — on the northeast corner — would be willing to negotiate to sell their 74 acres to Longmont, Auer said.

And if Longmont buys Firelight Park, the current owners also would be willing to drop their plans to annex into Firestone, Auer wrote.

But Longmont would need to halt its current efforts to annex right of way along Colo. 119 and Weld County Road 26, Auer wrote, “and agree not to pursue any further annexations or actions that will hinder the ability of the Union property to potentially be annexed or developed within Firestone.”

The owners of Firelight Park applied in February to annex into Firestone. LifeBridge’s application to annex its planned 350-acre Union development into Firestone followed within weeks.

Longmont leaders in turn took steps to keep Firestone town limits from reaching Longmont’s eastern edge.

...read the rest here.

For everyone out there worrying about the ongoing Democratic primary, here's a very refreshing take on everything.

Thank you Digby.

Going The Distance
by Digby

I hate writing about this primary because I'm nearly alone in my opinions and everyone on both sides mistrusts me for them. But what the hell. Last night was not unexpected so I'm a little bit surprised at all the rending of garments this morning. The polls all predicted a Clinton victory of about the percentage she got. I guess people were expecting some sort of late breaking shocker.

It appears obvious now that this campaign isn't going to end until everyone has voted in the primaries. And it's entirely possible that at that point, neither candidate will have been able to reach the magic number. If that's so, then the party rules (much like the constitutional requirement that the election go to the House of Representatives in the case of an electoral tie) the decision will fall to the superdelegates. (They may weigh in sooner rather than later to hit that magic number and that's fine too, although I don't see why it should be required.)

My views are horribly out of step with most of you, I recognize that. But I honestly think it's going to be nearly impossible to lose in the fall (although I think the outside Democratic groups need to start working on McCain's favorables sooner rather than later) so I'm just not feeling the panic about the primary. I like it when the voting process plays itself out rather than having the campaign spin and the media narratives telling the people what they are supposed to do. I've always felt that way. I still don't see this campaign as being particularly harsh by historical standards and I remain where I was at the beginning, believing that either candidate would be a good president and having no qualms about supporting either one of them. I just don't feel particularly emotional about it (except to the extent that I'm personally attacked for failing to feel properly emotional....) In fact, I hardly ever feel emotional about primaries. It's the conservatives (and chickenshit Dems, which neither of these candidates are) who really get my blood boiling.

To me, this primary is actually a good thing for the fall. All this hand wringing strikes me as typical Democratic nervous nellie-ism. A huge increase in Democratic voter registration, building of strong ground operations in most states, new technologies being beta tested, lots of media coverage and battle testing for the nominee are of benefit to the nominee in the fall. Meanwhile, the Democrats stay at center stage while McCain wanders around in obscurity, failing to raise money and leaving a trail of gaffes in his wake. As long as they don't know at whom to aim their fire the Republicans can't cement their narrative. In the end, I remain convinced that we are going into an election that is so fundamentally seismic that either of them can win it, even if more closely than we might want, due to the breakthrough nature of their campaigns. The primary continuing on is not going to change that.

One of the things I don't think people realize is that the democratization that the internet has brought to the system is also one of the main reasons why the campaign goes on. If you think superdelegates are undemocratic, back in the bad old days (of a couple of cycles ago) big party donors pulled the strings by pulling the money when they decided that someone had no chance to win. Today, both candidacies are where they are on the basis of avid small donor supporters contributing online and that's prolonged things past the point where it would have in the past. Thousands of Clinton supporters keep sending her money-- ten million since last night, apparently. So, if you don't like the fact that the campaign continues, blame the internet. It wouldn't have happened under the old paradigm.

Who's going to win? Like most people, I expect it will be Obama, but I can see that the idea of a unity ticket might begin to look like a way for the superdelegates to settle this. I don't think this campaign is hurting him --- he's getting needed experience and learning how to counter punch. (It's also pin pointing the places where he needs to improve his campaign for the fall.) And the fact that Clinton is still winning big primaries and getting campaign contributions makes it ridiculous to expect her --- or any politician --- to quit (no matter what the NY Times editorial board says.) She has a legitimate constituency (nearly half the voters) in the party that wants her to see this through....

Click here to read the rest..

Ranchers sue Army on Piñon Canyon expansion
A group of southeastern Colorado ranchers sued the U.S. Army today in federal court in Denver, claiming the Army is playing a game of chess with its plans to expand its training grounds outside of Trinidad.

The lawsuit claims the Army drafted an environmental-impact statement only for new support buildings it plans to erect on the existing Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site without mentioning any plans of expanding the acreage of the site. The buildings include barracks, dining halls, motor pools, medical facilities, shooting and grenade ranges, according to attorney Stephen Harris, who represents the ranchers' group, Not 1 More Acre.

In 2006, the Army proposed expanding the 368-square-mile site to nearly 1,000 square miles. Ranchers say they fear the Army will use eminent domain to take their land rather than pay fair market value for it. They also say they won't sell their ranches, some of which were homesteaded in the 1800s.

Jean Aguerre, president of Not 1 More Acre, said today that the Army rarely uses the site, having conducted no more than 30 large training exercises there since 1985, or slightly more than one a year. Aguerre, who lives near the site, said the exercises never last more than one month and that the site is empty the rest of the year.

Would it make Doug Bruce think?

As high-schoolers are "coming out" at younger ages, universities are doing more to market themselves to college-bound gay students.

The University of Colorado -- which participates in about 65 national, springtime college-admissions fairs -- included one for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students on this year's schedule.

Also, the Boulder campus' Gay-Straight Alliance is working with the student government to start a new program in which CU students would educate high-schoolers on issues surrounding sexuality and campus programs.

Shane Windmeyer, executive director of Campus Pride, a national nonprofit for GLBT students, said colleges are just now "coming out of the closet and being visible in the recruitment process."

Universities are realizing that having gay-friendly campuses is good for enrollment figures and building a diverse student population, he said.

"One of the things we have to recognize is students are coming out at younger ages while they are in high school," Windmeyer said. "Oftentimes they are discriminated against. When they go away to college, they don't want to have to deal with bias or bigoted attitudes. They just want to go and get an education like everyone else."

So, at this point we've all seen the U.S. Term Limits "Thanks Bob" video, right?

And hopefully, you've all seen our fun spoof too, "Thanks Big Oil Bob".

The Rocky Mountain News even gave us some lovin' in Wednesday's paper.

But the story doesn't end there.  Seems the good old gang at U.S. Term Limits doesn't really understand this whole "YouTube" thing so well.  So, they hired a firm to make their video and put it on the great wide interwebs for them.  Except, the firm they hired, well, they didn't understand that this wasn't a "Bob Schaffer for Senate" video, but really just a Thanks, Bob video for being such a great guy.  

But the wonderful folks at CREW picked up on that and, tada, a complaint was file and boom, the video was pulled off YouTube.  

From the Rocky Mountain News:

A national group behind a political ad showing schoolchildren repeatedly thanking U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer for his commitment to charter schools has run afoul of federal election laws.

U.S. Term Limits, a Virginia- based group, paid for the ad, which includes a written disclaimer: "U.S. Term Limits does not endorse candidates for public office."

But when the ad was posted to YouTube.com, it was labeled "Bob Schaffer for Senate video." That's considered election advocacy, according to a national ethics watchdog group. Anyone who pays for an ad advocating the election or defeat of a candidate must file a report with the Federal Election Commission within 48 hours after the ad appears. No report was filed. "We find this embarrassing,"

Philip Blumel, president of U.S. Term Limits, said Wednesday. He said the media company that produced the ad was supposed to label it "Thanks, Bob."

johne over at SquareState has a great post on the whole thing, complete with screen grabs, before they pulled everything down.

When I posted our spoof video, I linked it as a response to the orginal U.S. Term Limits video.  You can see in this screen grab that they labeled it a "Bob Schaffer for Senate video." 

Oops, turns out that's a BIG no-no. 

Pot probe targets restaurateur

A federal investigation into what drug agents call a "large- scale Asian marijuana organization" is focusing on a well-known Chinese restaurant owner who has fed President Bush, senators, governors and mayors.
...
A search warrant obtained by CBS 4 says an informant told authorities that "Dan Tang is the leader of this marijuana organization and provides financial assistance to members to purchase homes. In return for his investment, Dan Tang receives 30 percent of all profits from the marijuana grow houses that he sponsors."

James Dobson endorsed Mike Huckabee yesterday.

Wow, thank goodness for that. Now that we know Dobson has endorsed the sure non-candidate, can we maybe say his influence has waned to the point of irrelevancy?

OK, it's probably good to not go quite that far yet--never underestimate your enemy and all that. But I, for one, am very happy that Dobson waited to endorse a sure loser of a candidate until is was far too late to matter.

Here's the full text of Dobson's statement:

"I am endorsing Gov. Mike Huckabee for President of the United States today. My decision comes in the wake of my statement on Super Tuesday that I could not vote for Sen. John McCain, even if he goes on to win the Republican nomination. His record on the institution of the family and other conservative issues makes his candidacy a matter of conscience and concern for me.

"That left two pro-family candidates whom I could support, but I was reluctant to choose between them. However, the decision by Gov. Mitt Romney to put his campaign "on hold" changes the political landscape. The remaining candidate for whom I could vote is Gov. Huckabee. His unwavering positions on the social issues, notably the institution of marriage, the importance of faith and the sanctity of human life, resonate deeply with me and with many others. That is why I will support Gov. Huckabee through the remaining primaries, and will vote for him in the general election if he should get the nomination. Obviously, the governor faces an uphill struggle, given the delegates already committed to Sen. McCain. Nevertheless, I believe he is our best remaining choice for President of the United States."

The Shifty Schaffer campaign kicked off today!
Learn all about it at ShiftySchaffer.com.

From the Longmont Times Call:

The Longmont City Council voted unanimously Tuesday night to remove from the ballot the question of whether to allow the Union project into city limits.

Residents collected more than 6,000 signatures this fall to overturn the Longmont City Council’s annexation of LifeBridge Christian Church’s 350-acre development just south of Union Reservoir and put the project before voters.

Officials with LifeBridge and 4C, the church’s business arm, announced last week that they were dropping their request to annex into Longmont and instead plan to develop through Weld County.

City attorney Clay Douglas said the church’s decision makes the Union piece of the election a “moot point.”

Douglas said it was the council’s judgment call whether to leave Union on the ballot or take the question off.

Our local Fox 31 news channels does a pretty good job of covering local politics. And for that we are grateful! Here's another example.

They profiled Jen Gartner, the activist who helped lead the "What's In It for Longmont" charge to keep the LifeBrige/4C development out of Longmont. It was a historic victory for Longmont after lots of hard work by Jen and the hundreds of other volunteers who worked to make this happen.

"A lot of people who signed the petition mentioned they really wanted their elected officials to listen," she told us.

The key she said, was giving people a voice.

"I think it's a real testament to people's interest in longmont and in kind of kind of preserving the character of Longmont."

This week, six weeks before the election, Lifebridge withdrew their plans. an awful big victory, for Gartner.

Click here to watch the Fox 31 story that aired last night.

To view the video, just click the little image in the sidebar box below the main image. It's worth a look!

LifeBridge will develop its Union project in Weld County
By Rachel Carter Longmont Times-Call

LONGMONT — LifeBridge Christian Church won’t be in Longmont city limits.