Candidates Should Giddy Up and Answer Survey

Grand Junction's Free Press published the following article on January 18, 2010.

Candidates should giddy up and answer our survey

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

Shucks, mayor; you done warmed our Western hearts with your down-home talkin' and dusty cowboy hat.

While announcing his candidacy for governor, Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, a.k.a. "Hickenritter" (if you listen to GOP Chair Dick Wadhams), a.k.a. "Hick," said it's "Giddy up time in Colorado." Yippie ki-yay. Now all he needs is a running mate named Tonto.

What we want to know is whether Hickenlooper's campaign is more Lone Ranger or more Woody from Toy Story. To help us out, the mayor can answer the survey we sent to him the day he announced. We'd be much obliged.

We sent the survey to all the major-party candidates for governor and U.S. Senate. All Colorado candidates are welcome to respond, and answers will be published unedited at FreeColorado.com. We hope voters and other journalists encourage candidates to answer the survey. Voters have a right to know where the candidates stand on the issues. You can find the survey at http://tinyurl.com/cosurvey10.

Before we describe the survey, we offer an important elections announcement [that is now dated]. Tomorrow, January 19, is the final day to affiliate with a party if you wish to be involved in the caucus process. While Hickenlooper scared away his competition, many candidates face preliminary party votes.

To affiliate with a party, first you need to get a Colorado voter registration form, available at http://tinyurl.com/mesavote. You can scan in the form and email it to voter.info@mesacounty.us; deliver it in person to 544 Rood Avenue, Suite 301A; or mail it to P.O. Box 20,000, Grand Junction, 81502, postmarked by January 19. We thank the Mesa County Elections office for helping us with this information.

Now back to the survey. We have this crazy idea that elections should be about more than hair color, fancy slogans, and name-calling. We believe that elections should mostly be about the issues. Ideas matter. Where do the candidates stand? What do they believe?

Obviously any survey will reveal only so much about a candidate. For example, our survey doesn't include questions about the Democratic health bill. Most candidates are already talking about this issue, and we hope they clearly articulate their views on their web pages and elsewhere.

Our survey was more intended to reveal positions that candidates aren't talking about as much. We want to know whether candidates endorse corporate welfare. We want to know where they stand on key business controls, such as antitrust and Sarbanes-Oxley.

We also want candidates to quit obscuring their views. For example, while Scott McInnis used to be "pro-choice," he now calls himself "100 percent pro-life." But what does that mean? Does he want to ban absolutely all abortions? If not, what exceptions would he allow? The matter of abortion (and related issues such as birth control) will be particularly important this election, given a measure may again be on the ballot to define a fertilized egg as a person.

We want to know where candidates stand on immigration issues. Should a guest worker program be expanded? Should the Colorado legislature force businesses to verify with the federal government the legal status of potential employees? Should businesses be fined for failure to do so? Should tax-funded benefits ever be extended to non-citizen immigrants?

What about property rights? Do candidates endorse eminent domain, the forcible taking of private property? Under what circumstances? Do candidates endorse the smoking ban, even for on-stage performances?

Regarding the Bill of Rights, where do candidates stand with respect to free expression and the right to bear arms? For example, should adults with a concealed-carry permit be able to carry a handgun on tax-funded campuses?

Medical marijuana will be a huge issue this legislative session; where do candidates stand on that matter and on marijuana laws generally? What about rules governing petitioners? What about the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights?

Whether you're Republican, Democrat, unaffiliated, or other, you should care about candidates' positions. We hope that, in 2010, voters make a stand and demand that candidates state their views clearly, openly, and for the record.

Here's what you can do to help. Please contact your federal, state, and local candidates and encourage them to answer our survey and explain their views elsewhere. If you're a Republican, you can find a list of federal and state-wide candidates at http://tinyurl.com/2010gop. We called the Colorado Democrats, and a representative said that hopefully a list of candidates will be made available at ColoradoDems.org. Otherwise you may need to poke around on the internet or call a party office.

Candidates have a responsibility to reveal their views, and voters have a responsibility to critically and fairly evaluate candidates' positions. It won't do to take comments out of context or otherwise misrepresent what a candidate is about.

We will get the government we deserve. It's time for candidates to cowboy up. And it's time for us voters to earn our spurs.

Update: As of January 24, we've received a reply from one candidate running for governor or U.S. Senate: Dan Maes.

Maes Talks Taxes, Abortion, and Eminent Domain

I have been dismissive of Dan Maes, who is challenging presumptive front-runner Scott McInnis for the Republican nomination for governor. (See my first, second, and third set of comments.) But Maes shows up and answers questions, and that counts for a lot. His tenacity earns him at least a second glance -- especially given that McInnis is the ideal candidate of few.

I talked with Maes at the December 21 Liberty On the Rocks holiday party (er, "Christmas party!") hosted by the Independence Institute. We talked about a number of issues, but I assured him the conversation was off the record. He also complained that I had not given enough consideration to his candidacy. So I figured I'd invite him to further articulate some of things we talked about, on the record. I sent him five questions, which he generously answered. My questions are in bold.

I appreciate you giving me your time at the II event to discuss your campaign.

I would like to again give you the opportunity to further articulate your views, on the record. I have a number of questions arising from our conversation. I will be happy to publish your replies, unaltered, on my web page.

1. As governor, what would be your role in dealing with the military's desire to expand Pinon Canyon operations? [See the write-up about McInnis's statements on eminent domain for background.]

I would like to act as a mediator and seek out a mutually beneficial solution if possible. I do not see issues like this as zero sum. I only have the ranchers' input thus far and they have presented a very strong case for preservation based on many valuable criteria not limited to private property rights, less federalization of state land, and cultural history. I await the Army's position in detail beyond a GAO report that has unaddressed exemptions in it.

2. Generally, when do you believe eminent domain is appropriate, if ever?

It 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.

3. Please explain what specific economic policies you would adopt. Would you seek to cut specific taxes?

Yes, personal income tax and business property tax. Possibly explore a Fairtax (consumption tax).

Cut specific state programs?

Yes, TBD.

Roll back specific economic controls?

Clarify please.

[I was under the impression that Maes wanted to cut certain regulations on business, and I was trying to figure out which regulations he might want to repeal or modify. I will be happy to post Maes's additional comments on the matter if he cares to send them.] Many politicians, including W. Bush and Obama, promised to cut taxes, so I'm looking for some specific proposals.

I see our energy industry and the accompanying tax revenues as an enormous potential for our state just like our energy producing neighbors. With aggressive and responsible energy policies we could increase these revenues dramatically. Simultaneously, I have articulated my position on downsizing government FTE [full-time employees] by up to 4000.

I will defend Tabor while seeking a better balance with the effects of Amendment 23. I am a strong advocate for public schools as I have two children attending them, however; we must seek more fiscally responsible reform.

Cutting taxes is part of my plan but only after we have struck an appropriate sizing of state government and started a statewide recovery.

4. As you know, the Colorado legislature directs corporate welfare to a variety of industries, including tourism and energy. What are your views of corporate welfare?

I would like to examine the specifics in each case. 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.

5. The "personhood" measure slated for the 2010 ballot states, "As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the term 'person' shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being." Please explain your views on this measure.

I support it with the understanding that the life of the child is equal to that of the mother and shall never be considered more important than that of the mother.

I appreciate your pledge to answer the survey coming soon from my dad and me. That will probably come out the first days of January.

In closing, understand that we have 3 months until caucuses, 5.5 months until state assembly, and 11 months until the general election. It is still a tad early to have all the answers but I hope I have given you something to start with. Contrary to my opponent, I do have a copy of the current state budget and will continue to examine it, get consultation on it, and come
ready to provide even more specifics in the near future. Thank you.

I will indeed be interested to see whether McInnis is as forthcoming in his answers to the upcoming survey. (I also hope the survey prompts even more specific and revealing answers from Maes on a variety of issues.) I believe the voters of Colorado deserve to know where candidates stand on the issues.

By the way, a People's Press Collective article discusses some of the recent comments of the candidates, including McInnis's comments about the CSU gun ban.

Talking both with Maes and with Clive Tidwell, the underdog in the U.S. Senate race, I picked up a "throw the bums out" vibe, which is to be expected from candidates with no political experience running against seasoned former politicians. However, I have no interest in replacing one bum with another, potentially worse one. While experience and biography do matter in these political races, I hope ultimately they are about fundamental ideas and their application to policy. So I will continue to try to get candidates to articulate their ideas and policies as fully as possible. I hope the voters -- and other political writers -- join me in this.

Scott McInnis on Eminent Domain

In the comments to my recent post about Dan Maes, "Mike" reminded me about a proposal to expand military lands around Piñon Canyon.

Lynn Bartels writes for the December 10 Denver Post, "Republicans opposed to the military's Piñon Canyon expansion project are disappointed that property rights weren't addressed when party leaders unveiled a new platform and rallied around gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis."

Here is how the Post's article summarizes the issue: "The Army wants to [expand] its 235,000-acre Piñon Canyon training maneuver area by almost 100,000 acres. The Army has promised to acquire the land only from a willing seller or through a long-term lease, but landowners in the impacted areas in southeastern Colorado fear their property will be seized, adversely-affected or the military will eventually want even more land."

It is important, then, to distinguish between expansion of the military lands and the use of eminent domain. Property rights do not always protect the owner from being "adversely affected." For instance, unless you live in an HOA that controls for such things, your neighbor might paint his house an ugly color, park ugly cars in front, and otherwise do things that incidentally reduce the value of your property. So we must limit the discussion to actual violations of property rights, such as the use of eminent domain to forcibly seize property from those unwilling to voluntarily sell it.

According to State Representative Steve King, McInnis said the government "is no longer threatening eminent domain in the Piñon Canyon expansion." Apparently, then, McInnis's support of the project assumed that eminent domain would not be used.

However, the Fifth Amendment states that private property may be taken for public use for just compensation. Do McInnis's critics wish to claim that government ought never use eminent domain, even though the Constitution explicitly authorizes it? That's my position, but I think McInnis's critics need to detail their views. If Republicans are going to beat up their candidates for considering eminent domain for an obviously public use, that's a high bar, and one that should be set intentionally rather than as a pretext for partisan attacks.

Another comment by McInnis on the matter is more troubling. According to the Post, McInnis said, "Balancing the deep need that Colorado has for quality jobs with the rights of Piñon Canyon property owners requires leadership and dialogue."

I believe that property rights should be consistently protected, not "balanced" against some alleged need to forcibly seize property for somebody else to use. I would be interested to learn if McInnis's Republican critics believe that eminent domain should be abolished across the board, or if they merely want to restrict the practice to somebody else's property.

In the meantime, it would be helpful if McInnis would further clarify his views on eminent domain and property rights.

Tea Partiers Get Partisan

I liked the Tea Parties better when they were about issues, not partisan politics.

Yesterday I received the following e-mail:

Defend the Republic Rally

Saturday, December 12th from 1:00 to 2:00pm

Colorado State Capital Building - West Steps
Colfax & Lincoln
Denver, CO 80203

Northern Colorado Tea Party is encouraging all supporters to attend this rally. We are asking for a voice in the debate taking place regarding the 2010 elections. If we want the GOP to listen to us, we need to show them we are a political force to be reckoned with here in Colorado.

As the war between the United State of America and the Progressives in both political parties continues to wage, the Tea Party and 912 supporters have stepped up and answered the call of duty.

Let us stand together at the State Capital on Saturday, united to make one single statement:

Principle Over Party in 2010

Speakers will include:

Mike Holler - Author of The Constitution Made Easy
Lu Busse - Leadership Chair for Co 912 Project
Dan Maes - Candidate for Colorado Governor
Tea Party & 912 Activists

See the Denver Post article by Jessica Fender or the People's Press Collective review by Michael Sandoval for more background.

So the complaint is that Republican leaders have endorsed a candidate who might actually be able to win. I'm confused as to why this is some sort of grand sin. Anybody who thinks Dan Maes has any chance of winning the Republican primary and beating Bill Ritter is simply delusional.

(For the record, I'm registered unaffiliated, so I'll have no vote in the GOP primary. I have yet to decide whether any candidate in the governor's race will get my vote as the lesser of evils. I voted for Ritter last time around.)

As somebody who has attended, written about, and spoken at various Tea Party and related events, I have to wonder about this overtly partisan turn of the Northern Tea Party. I thought this was about issues, not parties. I thought it was about liberty, not personality.

I challenge those organizing the December 12 rally to articulate their ideological differences with Scott McInnis, and their ideological affinity with Dan Maes. I must frankly question the motives of those unable or unwilling to do so. Please leave a comment or respond via e-mail.

Dan Maes Describes Top Five Issues

Dan Maes doesn't have a chance in hell of becoming the next governor of Colorado. This is a guy who lists under his "public service" qualifications: "Boy Scout Leadership as a teen and in his early 20’s." Scott McInnis, on the other hand, served in the state legislature before spending twelve years in Congress. Maes has no political credentials. He has zero chance of winning the Republican primary, and if by some bizarre chance every other possible Republican candidate died first, Maeas would have zero chance of beating Ritter.

Nevertheless, Maes did respond to a question quickly, and that counts for something.

On November 24, Maes sent out the following e-mail:

I was speaking with a county chairperson today and the subject of leadership for the party came up. He expressed his unhappiness with the lack of leadership in the republican party. I do not think he was referring to the state office but rather to our elected officials and candidates. The question is...was he issuing a challenge to me or simply stating a fact?

Lesson one when talking to me, I actually do listen. Number two, I look for those messages one is really trying to communicate. Maybe he was just venting but perhaps there was more to it all especially in light of the so called attempt to provide leadership this week by those without the authority or credibility to do so.

I jumped in this race months before others did. Obviously, I had a lot of catching up to do; but more importantly, I sensed there was a leadership vacuum myself that someone had to proactively fill. That has been my style since I was a teen. When a position needed to be filled or a responsibility taken on, it was not unusual for me to stick my hand up for the job. Ah, you might have thought I was the sucker in the old days but all those rolls prepared me for what I am doing today. Boy Scout Troop Leader, Student Council Member and President, Senior Class President, Captain of the football team, manager and owner of businesses... you get the point. Many ask, why do it? It is just how God wired me I suppose and for better or worse, I am here trying to become a leader for the Republican party.

I will suffer the slings and arrows of those who would rather be leader. That is also part of leadership. I will continue to work hard in my attempt to earn the right to be your leader. Do actions match words?

Dan Maes
The People's Candidate for Governor
www.danmaes.com

Thinking that his campaign is rather Quixotic, I asked, "Hey Dan, I challenge you to describe five *substantive* differences of policy or ideology you have with McInnis. I will be happy to publish your reply on my web page."

This morning he obliged (sort of):

Hi Ari,

Responding to your question regarding differences in me and Scott McInnis is a bit difficult in itself because Scott rarely articulates policy in his forums and speeches. We tend to hear about his family, how long he has been in Colorado, and railing against Bill Ritter. His failure to articulate any real policy was the main reason for the recent Contract for Colorado which had Josh Penry and Tom Tancredo helping his campaign actually develop a message of any kind. Thus, I do not see any connection between this document and his past or future behavior and thus nothing to differentiate myself on.

I will leave the opposition research to you and I will not attempt to articulate where Scott is on any issues. I will tell you where I stand.

1. Pinyon Canyon - I await the facts from the Army. I will seek a mutually beneficial resolution via willing sellers/leasers if at all possible.

2. Taxes - I am a true fiscal conservative and for downsizing government, and reducing taxes to spur growth not just maintaining status quo.

3. Social Issues - I have said consistently that we must stop preaching and start reaching out for a more diverse party yet I stand firm on a pro-life, and pro marriage between a man and woman platform. Some claim to have recent "revelations" and a come to Jesus but do their actions match their words?

4. Qualifications - people confuse experience with qualifications. The Governor's office is an executive office not a legislative one. Legislative experience does not translate into executive experience. Scott has very little to no executive experience. I have 20+ years of managerial and executive experience. This experience is the core qualification for the office and our current president is a great example of a legislator turned executive.

5. Campaign Style - I am becoming very popular very fast because I connect with people and truly care about what is important to them. Ask anyone who has spent a few minutes with me and they can sense the genuine, honest, hard working person who wants to earn their support and work for them. This is not 1994 anymore. People want to be treated like they are the boss. They are more informed and educated than ever before. I recognize that and treat people accordingly.

Ultimately, after all the facts are considered, people perform gut checks and ultimately ask themselves, do I like and trust this candidate. They are discovering more and more that they like and can trust me. Maybe that is the reason the full frontal assault against any choice in this primary has happened so early in this election cycle.

Thank you for the opportunity to address your readers.

Dan Maes
Re-Energizing Colorado's Economy
Republican Candidate for Governor
www.danmaes.com

Perhaps I should upgrade Maes's chances from zero to one. But hell is a pretty big place.

The McInnis Juggernaut

A number of my friends are upset that Josh Penry has withdrawn from the Colorado governor's race, leaving Scott McInnis as the clear Republican frontrunner.

The word is that a political attack group threatened to hammer Penry if he stayed in the race. Welcome to politics. Such strong-arm tactics are hardly new in the American political arena. They are the norm.

The fact is that Penry trailed in fundraising, name recognition, and polling against Governor Bill Ritter. So, in retrospect, it comes as little surprise that the Republican establishment supported McInnis or that Penry decided to pick a fight he knows he can win.

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. There's also been talk of roping former Congressman Tom Tancredo into the race. I think that would be a disaster for the GOP. There are a lot of things I like about Tancredo (as well as a lot of points of disagreement), but he simply isn't governor material. He's too divisive, too polarizing. He always won his conservative district, but he would bomb in the Denver-Boulder corridor.

So that leaves McInnis as the presumptive nominee. Even though McInnis used to serve in Congress, I have little idea what his ideas are.

I find it amazing that his web page features a "Scott on the Issues" button that offers exactly zero direct information on McInnis's views. Instead, the reader is directed to an OnTheIssues.org page. An "ideas" candidate McInnis is not.

So who is Scott McInnis?

Taking abortion as a good indicator of a candidate's relationship with the religious right, Lynn Bartels reports for the Denver Post:

Gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis, for example, entered Congress as a pro-choice Republican, although he exited in 2004 having received a zero ranking from NARAL Pro-choice America, an abortion-rights advocacy group.

"He makes no bones that he changed his views while in Congress," said McInnis spokesman Sean Duffy.

Bartels follows up:

He voted against some abortion measures, supported others and once chaired the national Republicans for Choice.

"I personally don't support abortion," McInnis said in 1996, "but feel the decision shouldn't be made between a woman and the government but between a woman and her doctor."

He said Friday he no longer feels that way, although he has maintained his reputation as a political moderate.

"You grow older and you have kids and grandkids and friends die and you realize how important life is," said McInnis, 56.

At a November 3 event at Colorado Christian University, McInnis said, "I'm 100 percent pro life. I oppose gay marriage," Bartels reports.

(Maes, obviously trying to appeal to the state's social conservatives, added, "Marriage is not a right, it's a privilege, and it is a privilege that is ordained in the Scripture.")

Bartels summarizes McInnis's history with the issue of abortion:

The Rocky Mountain News in 1996 called McInnis a maverick on abortion.

He long had opposed partial-birth abortions and backed parental notification. But he opted to allow for privately funded abortions at overseas U.S. military hospitals, to let federal employees choose health insurance plans to cover abortions and to preserve federal funding for family-planning programs.

In 1995, NARAL tracked 21 roll-call votes. McInnis sided with their issues seven times.

From a civil libertarian perspective, McInnis is mixed, judging from the votes noted by On the Issues. In 2004 he voted against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. But thrice he voted for an amendment banning flag desecration in violation of free speech and property rights.

I'll certainly have some questions for "100 percent pro life" McInnis. Does he want to ban abortion even in cases of risks to the woman's life, rape, incest, and fetal deformity? Does he want to overturn Roe v. Wade? Does he support the "personhood" measure likely to share the 2010 ballot?

Ritter (for whom I voted) is a tax-and-spend, corporate welfarist bungler, no doubt. Yet, even though Ritter also nominally opposes abortion, I don't have to worry about him trying to throw my wife in prison should she need to end a medically risky pregnancy.

McInnis couldn't possibly be any worse than Ritter on economic issues. But, as much as I don't want Ritter in my wallet, I certainly don't want McInnis in my bedroom or doctor's office. It remains to be seen which candidate will least frighten mainstream Colorado voters.

Censoring Scott McInnis

I imagine the last thought on Scott McInnis's mind about Complete Colorado is "you complete me."

McInnis, who appears headed into the Colorado governor's race of 2010, appeared in scandalous-sounding headlines before even announcing his candidacy -- something every candidate no doubt wishes to avoid -- thanks to an April 30 exclusive story by Complete Colorado bearing the ominous title, "Voicemail Raises Ethics Questions for McInnis and His Probable Campaign for Governor."

McInnis left a voice mail with a potential supporter in which McInnis mentioned, "We've got Sean Tonner on board... Sean's doin' our... 527." Complete Colorado summarizes, "The mention of Tonner being on the team and also running a 527 could be problematic. It is illegal for a candidate committee to coordinate with a 527 'issues' committee."

Now that McInnis said the verboten word "527," it is no doubt time for a full inquiry. All we need now is a smoking gun or a stained dress.

What this story actually illustrates is that the campaign finance "reform" laws are in fact censorship laws. Candidates cannot simply present their message to the public coordinating with willing donors and spokespersons: they can speak only within the confines of elaborate and arbitrary rules that only armies of lawyers can hope to decipher.

A regular person cannot run for office without consulting an attorney. If you want to run for political office, you must learn the politically-correct and lawyer-approved code language for announcing your candidacy and discussing supporters. If you violate these Speech Codes, you can land in deep trouble.

The campaign censorship laws help assure that only political insiders can navigate the election laws. Most normal people are frightened away from running for office or even becoming involved in political causes. The campaign censorship laws facilitate retaliatory lawsuits and campaigns of character assassination.

Meanwhile the campaign censorship laws obviously have not cleaned up politics or gotten "big money" out of politics. The laws have merely thrown the advantage to those with enough lawyers to game the legal system.

I find it astonishing that the recipient of the voice mail -- presumably a Republican -- sent the voice mail to a conservative/libertarian site in order to damage a Republican candidate. (Josh Penry is also headed into the race on the Republican side.)

A May 1 story by the Denver Post's Jessica Fender offers useful context. Here is how McInnis defended the voice message:

McInnis, who verified that he left the message, pointed out that he has not officially announced his candidacy or formed a candidate committee, so the rules do not yet apply.

And what he really meant to say was that Tonner, president of consulting firm Phase Line Strategies, is a supporter and is answering questions about potential future 527s, he said.

"I should have said Sean Tonner is the one I'm looking to for answers on this," McInnis said. "The law doesn't prohibit you from discussions on 'This is what's going to be needed.' "

So apparently candidates can discuss "potential future 527s" without coordinating with them. McInnis's interpretation of the inherently ambiguous Speech Codes is as legitimate as any other.

These are in fact censorship laws, as Fender's following passage illustrates:

McInnis may not have technically broken campaign laws, said Colorado Common Cause Director Jenny Flanagan, but there is one simple rule when it comes to 527s: Don't talk to them.

"It's certainly a violation of the spirit," Flanagan said.

When the law prevents you from talking to others, that is censorship. Such laws violate the Bill of Rights and our fundamental human rights. They are an abomination that must be repealed.

That said, I am surprised that McInnis, a former member of Congress, did not script his message more carefully given his knowledge of the campaign censorship laws.

Complete Colorado did the right thing in running the story. It is important to know how the censorship laws are carried out in order to argue against them.

The fact that Complete Colorado has a political leaning does create a certain awkwardness surrounding the story, as illustrated by a headline above a story from the Daily Sentinel's Gary Harmon, "McInnis' voice mail posted at site run by supporters of possible rival." Harmon notes that Complete Colorado "is owned by Todd Shepherd and Justin Longo," both of whom work for the Independence Institute. Harmon writes, "CompleteColorado.com has nothing to do with the Golden-based Independence Institute, where he is employed to research government misdeeds, Shepherd said." Still, awkward.

However, Harmon's claim that Shepherd and Longo "are supporting McInnis' likely intraparty rival, Josh Penry" is completely unjustified, as Shepherd demonstrates in a follow-up article. Shepherd points out that Harmon's claim is based exclusively on the fact that both Shepherd and Longo "are listed on a Facebook page, 'Draft Josh Penry for Colorado Governor.'"

But that Facebook association proves nothing. People often join internet lists, Facebook pages, etc. to gain information. Shepherd points out that he is also Facebook "friends" with Democratic Governor Bill Ritter. Moreover, the Daily Sentinel itself is friends with Penry (and I wonder whether this was merely the result of investigating the story).

So we have (fake) scandal and (fake) counter-scandal.

Unfortunately, few are talking about the real scandal: political activists in Colorado suffer under censorship laws and Orwellian Speech Codes. Perhaps journalists should spend a bit of time looking into that.