As of today, there are still no major party challengers to Rep. Diana DeGette or Rep. Doug Lamborn. While these races are obviously lost causes for the party out of power, both parties should realize that failing to make any sort of showing in rival strongholds will erode their statewide candidates. Federal candidates will be at the top of the ballot and it could be fatal to McInnis or Hickenlooper in a close race if their party has no one running for these congressional offices. Republicans can't afford further erosion in Denver County and the Democrats should realize that holding down Republican numbers as much as possible outside of Denver is key to their victory.

More troubling, voters deserve the chance to have a choice in these races. Even if there is no chance of defeating Diana DeGette, Republican voters in the district should be able to cast a ballot to make their voices heard and, yes, Democrats living in Colorado Springs should be afforded the opportunity.

Step forward, folks. There are three Republican candidates lined up to run against Jared Polis and there was a brief but spirited debate over the Democratic nomination in CD-6. Someone can run in CD-1 and CD-5.

Earlier today the House voted 345-75 to block federal funds for ACORN (AKA tax assistance for child pimps and prostitutes). A majority of House Democrats voted in favor of blocking the funds and all but two members of the Colorado delegation voted to stop funding ACORN. Jared Polis and Diana DeGette voted no. Click here for the full roll call vote.

(- promoted by Rocky Mountain Right -)

The U.S. House of Representatives finally released the text of the health care bill called ··America·s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009·· HR 3200 and it can now be read in its 1,018 page entirety. The bill's subtitle is " A Bill to provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes. All the bill's language was written to further this cause, i.e, to provide healthcare to everyone and to reduce the growth in spending. You can link to a pdf of the health care bill here.

Since the bill's public release, a lot of people have gotten fired up in support and in opposition to it. Each side has called the other liars, and worse. One part of the bill in particular has touched a nerve. That is Section 1233, ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION.

Although the section is only ten pages long, it is still hard to digest. Below is a condensed version of this Section with cites to page number and line number. In Section 1233, the person being consulted is an individual over 65 in the medicare program. The Consultant is called a "practitioner".

p. 428, l. 14-19 - A 'practitioner" is a physician, nurse practitioner or physician's assistant. The practitioner is the one who consults on Advanced Care Planning with the individual. There is nothing in the health care bill that states the consultation is voluntary.

p. 425, l. 17-21 - The practitioner first gives an explanation of and counsels on advance directives, living wills, durable powers of attorney and health care proxies.

p. 426, l. 4-8 - The practitioner then explains and counsels end-of-life services, palliative care where they ease pain without curing the underlying disease, hospice programs for meeting the physical needs of the terminally ill and the benefits for such services. The practitioner does not have to explain any drawbacks of these end-of-life services such as death itself.

P. 426, l. 9-16 - The practitioner finally explains the Order Regarding Life Sustaining Treatment and why it is beneficial to the individual and the individual's family. The practitioner does not have to explain any drawbacks of this Order such as death itself.

After the consultation is over, the individual is not involved with any further parts of the Advance Care Planning Consultation. In no part of the process is the individual required to sign anything or execute any planning documents.

p. 427, l. 10-25 - Having a consultation in and of itself, allows the practitioner to formulate an Order Regarding Life Sustaining Treatment without any further input from the individual. The Order just needs to be signed by a physician, nurse practitioner or physician's assistant to be in full force and effect. The Order is an actionable medical order designed to stay with the individual and to be followed by health care professionals for the remainder of the individual's care.

p. 430, l. 1-4 The only input from the individual for the formulation of the Order is that it communicate the individual's preferences regarding treatment. Since the individual doesn't have to sign anything or affirmatively state anything during the consultation, it is up to the practitioner to presume and interpret the individual's preferences.

p. 430, l. 13-24 The Order has the power to limit medical interventions, limit the use of antibiotics, limit nutrition and limit hydration. The Order can address whether an individual goes to the hospital or remains at a hospice or other nursing home.

So where does the language in the Order come from?

p. 428, l. 5-13 The Order is guided by a coalition of stakeholders including state hospice associations, home health association, etc. This is the section that has been decried as a "Death Panel" by Gov. Palin and others.

Since this house bill is written to reduce the growth of health care spending and people over 65 consume health care dollars at the end-of-life, it is pretty easy to see why Section 1233 was inserted into the health care bill.

Older Americans are not stupid. They can read and they can comprehend this health bill. No wonder so many older Americans are turning out in droves at town hall meetings. You would be angry too if the federal government was trying to kill you off.

If you want to vent, below are the phone numbers for our congress members and senators. Give them a buzz.

Dianna Degette - CD1 - 202-225-4431

Jared Polis - CD2 - 202-225-2161

John Salazar - CD3 - 202-225-4761

Betsy Markey - CD4 - 202-225-4676

Doug Lamborn - CD5- 202-225-4422

Mike Coffman - CD6 - 202-226-4623

Ed Perlmutter - CD7 - 202-225-2645

Mark Udall - Senate - 202-224-5941

Mike Bennett - Senate - 202-224-5852

Mike Robinson is Senior Partner at Robinson & Henry P.C., a Castle Rock, CO law firm.

You can get PPP to do polling in Colorado at by voting Colorado at http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/

We are only a few votes down from Arizona, let's get some match-up info for 2010. We need to update from Bill Owens and John Elway

Ryan Frazier and Cleve Tidwell, both candidates for US Senate, are trying real hard to pull a victory in this straw poll. Tidwell had been leading for days when at the last minute Frazier got out the word on facebook and as taken a lead. Over 1150 people have voted. Ken Buck has little support and Bob Beauprez has virtually none.

Update: Tidwell wins with 47% to Frazier's 45%. Ken Buck recieved 6% and Beauprez managed to win 1%.

(- promoted by Rocky Mountain Right -)

Ever stood in line at Target next to that mom who threatens and threatens her bratty little 2-year-old while the kid screams and screams?

Congress has apparently taken the same stance in dealing with the Wall Street mess - only this time it's taxpayers who will be forced to foot the bill or listen to the screaming. Republicans have a chance to demonstrate some tough love with their Wall Street counterparts and tell them to "suck it up."

I, for one, am tired of paying for other people's mistakes and bad gambling habbits. This isn't rocket science - either you have the money and can afford a home or you don't. If a lender decides to take a chance on bad debt, why are taxpayers left making the banking industry whole? You take your loss, 'cause that's how we do it in the NBA.

Most Americans couldn't tell you what is going on in Congress let alone Wall Street - all they know is that things cost more now than they did a year ago.

Most national business groups have thrown their lot in with the Democrats.  Don't believe me? If Republicans are smart, they'll simply thumb their nose at Wall Street and stand up against this sort of government takeover. But I'm guessing that most of them haven't the fortitude it will take to let a few bad companies (and investors) die to preserve the rest of the herd.

History has shown us that 'inevitable' and 'emergency'  legislation like the Patriot Act or Sarbanes-Oxley is never more popular than on the day it is passed -- and this issue isn't all that popular to begin with.

To his credit, George Lilly has said that he is not interested in pursuing any further action on this and I take him on his word on that just as I believe he supports Bob Schaffer even if he doesn't seem to like the people working to get him elected all that much. Today, the Citizen Media Law Project chimed in on Lilly's threat and basically backed up what I had been saying: that Lilly had little basis, there were facts to back me up, and that the post clearly constituted opinion posted to an opinion website. Citizen Media Law Project:

George Lilly, the Republican candidate for Colorado's First Congressional District, says on his website that he considers defense of the U.S. Constitution a "sacred oath."  But after he threatened a libel lawsuit against the Rocky Mountain Right ("RMR") blog, one wonders about his views on the First Amendment.

In a June 9, 2008, post, RMR editor Anthony Surace announced the blog's endorsement of George Lilly's rival in the Republican primary, Charles Crain.  Calling Lilly "no Republican," Surace claimed that Lilly was not sufficiently supporting the Republican ticket in Colorado.  Surace also asserted that Lilly's supporters "made clear they would not support [presumptive Republican presidential nominee] John McCain or [Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate] Bob Schaffer" in the coming elections, and that Lilly's presence on the ticket "could be disruptive enough to harm other Republican candidates running statewide."

This past weekend, Lilly emailed Surace, demanding that the offending post be removed and that RMR issue an apology.  In his email, which Surace posted on RMR, Lilly alleged that Surace had libelously misstated Lilly's support for Schaffer.

You have libeled me with your blog. I have contributed money to Bob Schaffer on two ocasions [sic] for his senatorial bid, and I have spoken well of him on many occasions and told people like Ryan Call (State Republican Legal Counsel for the Republican Party) as well as others, that I support Bob.  I have known Bob for close to twenty years, and I think he is an excellent person and legislator.  He is also friendly with Ron Paul, and thinks very highly of him as do I.  I recommend that you print an immediate retraction of your false allegations against me and issue an apology, or I will seek legal redress against you.

Lilly also wrote that he was sending copies of his email to his supporters.  Surace noted that the email included Surace's home address.

PolitickerCO.com, a news site for Colorado political insiders, reports that, ironically, Surace had deleted the offending post (which can still be viewed on Google's cache) a few hours before receiving Lilly's email, as Surace had become concerned by a news report that the candidate RMR had endorsed, Charles Crain, was apparently living in a homeless shelter.   As a result, Surace wrote that he would "take George Lilly at his word that he supports Bob Schaffer and donated to his campaign," and that he apologized "for any confusion over the issue."  Nonetheless, Surace criticized Lilly for threatening a frivolous lawsuit and noted several factual bases, including a video posted to YouTube by Lilly's campaign, that supported Surace's assertions.

Indeed, Lilly would have a tough time bringing a successful defamation suit against Surace. First, Lilly would have to show that Surace's statements were false. That doesn't look easy. Surace's saying that Lilly "is no Republican" comes across as an opinion, not a fact.  Although he doesn't go into detail in the original post, Surace's evidence in support of his position regarding Lilly's effect on the Republican ticket is defensible. Perhaps Surace's claim that Lilly launched "tirades" against the Schaffer campaign could be proven false, but this also looks like political hyperbole rather than fact, and Surace has a reasonable argument that the assertion was substantially true.

Further, Lilly would have trouble showing that he suffered any actual harm.  Certainly, he might have been offended by Surace's assertions, but there is nothing Surace wrote that is so egregious that a court would automatically assume harm to his reputation. And even if Lilly could show Surace made a false statement that harmed his reputation, Lilly would have to show "actual malice" on Surace part. Lilly, being a candidate for national office, is almost certainly a public figure, and thus he would have to show that Surace actually knew that what he wrote was false or recklessly disregarded its falsity. Even putting aside Surace's subsequent post, which indicates that he believed and still believes the statements to be true, the subjective and hyperbolic nature of Surace's original statements make this a daunting task. The comments certainly were no worse than the typical mudslinging Lilly is apt to see on the campaign trail.

In fact, Surace seems to have come to the same conclusion about Lilly's libel claim - he reissued his "libelous" blog post verbatim on Sunday, saying that Lilly's claim had "no legal standing."  Surace added that "Lilly should be ashamed of himself for thinking he could intimidate a political blogger with threats of legal action."

Will Lilly follow through on his legal threat?  He told PolitickerCO.com that he considered Surace's post containing the apology to be a retraction.  With Surace's reissue of the offending post, the situation may not yet be resolved.

You can follow further developments about Lilly's legal threat in our Legal Threats Database entry: Lilly v. Rocky Mountain Right. 

Note George Lilly's showing and party affiliation:

  Diana L. DeGette * (D)    160,169     73%
  Roland F. Chicas (R)    53,662     25%
  George C. Lilly (AmC)    4,685     2%

Maybe "Mr. Lawsuit" could try running as a Democrat or Green in 2010. And remember, if anyone doesn't endorse you, you can just threaten to sue them.

This post was originally published on June 9th and endorsed Charles Crain. I later decided that I desired to stay neutral in the primary and deleted it. George Lilly then sent me an email with the threat of a lawsuit clearly intended to prevent me from endorsing his primary opponent or criticizing his candidacy. In light of this, I am reissuing Rocky Mountain Right's endorsement of Charles Crain. Lilly's complaint at the above link can be read in full, upon examining his complaint and the content of this post it became clear that Lilly had no legal standing to threaten a libel suit as the post clearly addresses his problems with those running the Schaffer campaign and the Colorado GOP as well as the behavior of his supporters and my opinion that he would be a drag on the statewide races. Nonetheless, Lilly went to great trouble to impress on me that he supports Bob Schaffer and I believe he does like Schaffer, though that doesn't mean his rhetoric towards Dick Wadhams (Schaffer's campaign manager) isn't going to be damaging.

George Lilly should be ashamed of himself for thinking he could intimidate a political blogger with threats of legal action and sending out my home address to his mailing list. I am a firm believer in the First Amendment and I will not be silenced. Political speech is a sacred American right and George Lilly needs to recognize that fact.

While Rocky Mountain Right will remain neutral in most primaries, some present such a clear-cut choice and unusual scenario that an endorsement must be given. One of these scenarios is the Congressional District One primary encompassing Denver's solid Democratic district. While it is a nearly foregone conclusion that the Democrat will be victorious in CD-1, the outcome of this Republican primary is vital to the Bob Schaffer and John McCain candidacies.

At the CD-1 assembly, ballot access was granted to George Lilly and Charles Crain to compete in the primary. George Lilly converted to the Republican Party recently from the Constitution Party and is now running for Congress. At his public appearances at Denver County GOP events he has launched tirades against the Schaffer and McCain campaigns and has made it clear that he will not support the Republican ticket in November. Supporters of Lilly's were responsible for many of the pointless disruptions of the Colorado Republican Convention several weeks ago. His supporters made clear they would not support John McCain and pulled several stunts that included parading around in Uncle Sam outfits while screaming at Dick Wadhams at the podium.

George Lilly is no Republican. While it is doubtful we can win this seat, George Lilly's presence on the ticket could be disruptive enough to harm other Republican candidates running statewide.

Vote Charles Crain in the Republican CD-1 Primary. Tell George Lilly to go back to the Constitution Party.

George Lilly, a candidate who ran in CD-1 as the American Constitution Party candidate in 2004 and later converted to the Republican Party, sent the following notice to my personal email account this evening:

You have libeled me with your blog.  I have contributed money to Bob Schaffer on two ocasions for his Senatorial bid, and I have spoken well of him on many occasions and told people like Ryan Call (State Republican Legal Counsel for the Republican Party) as well as others, that I support Bob.  I have known Bob for close to twenty years, and I think he is an excellent person and legislator.  He is also friendly with Ron Paul, and thinks very highly of him as do I.  I recommend that you print an immediate retraction of your false allegations against me and issue an apology, or I will seek legal redress against you.
 
I am not a "lock step boot licking Republican" as many Republicans seem to be.  If the Republican leadership is wrong, I won't support them, because I answer to a higher authority than the Republican Party - namely my LORD and Savior Jesus Christ and the Biblical principles that guide my life.  That may mean nothing to you or a large number of Republicans today, but it's where I stand like it or not.
 
I have made a copy of your blog which I am keepiing on file, and I am sending this email to my supporters, so that you may get a "heads up" from someone other than myself.  If you doubt the veracity of my statement that I support Bob Schaffer, it is public record who gives money to a candidate.  You may also speak with Bob and ask him.  If you wish to speak with me personally before you make rash assertions about me, then please feel free to contact me.

The post that Mr. Lilly was referring to had actually already been deleted at the time he sent this email after I had reconsidered the CD-1 primary and decided I was too harsh on George Lilly's candidacy. The post opposed Mr. Lilly on the basis that he was running against the "establishment" and would not be a team player for the GOP ticket. I'll take George Lilly at his word that he supports Bob Schaffer and donated to his campaign and apologize for any confusion over the issue. My statement was based on items posted at Mr. Lilly's website that were harshy critical of the Colorado GOP and Bob Schaffer's campaign. It appears that George Lilly just has a problem with Dick Wadhams and those running Bob Schaffer's campaign as this video his campaign posted to YouTube reveals:

Not only does this video take shots at Dick Wadhams and the Republican Party, but it singles out a number of people as "Ron Paul supporters." In fact, I have spoken to several of the people pictured in this video who are not and never have been Ron Paul supporters and were none too happy about being called such; I wonder if any of them would be interested in pursuing a libel suit against George Lilly?

I stand by my statement that George Lilly as a "Ron Paul republican" who goes around to Denver GOP events attacking the "establishment" (as seen in his campaign video) is likely to be a drag on the other Republicans on the ticket in terms of vote margins in CD-1 and in terms of fundraising. George Lilly's supporters were disruptive at the CD-1 assembly and were responsible for many of the disruptions at the Colorado State Convention. I also question George Lilly's motivations for sending that email out to his list as, at least in the copy I received, my home address is prominently listed and would appear to be a veiled threat. I sure hope that my "heads up" doesn't involve a psychopath in the parking lot with a tire iron.

As George Lilly is new to the Republican Party, I am willing to forgive him for not realizing that frivolous lawsuits are frowned upon here. I would also like to suggest that he makes his campaign material a bit more clear in his support of Bob Schaffer as the only mention on his website is a video going after Schaffer's campaign manager and people are likely to get the wrong idea when you use your allotted time at public events railing against the Republican Party (again, see his campaign video).

If people have a perception problem of you then that's your fault, and if that perception caused you to only get 61% of the assembly vote against a homeless man then perhaps you should spend your time trying to correct it instead of threatening lawsuits against people who don't like you.

Update (12:53 AM):

Upon examining the original post which George Lilly is threatening me over, the passage he is upset about reads as:

At his public appearances at Denver County GOP events he has launched tirades against the Schaffer and McCain campaigns and has made it clear that he will not support the Republican ticket in November.

The post clearly specifies his rants against the Schaffer and McCain campaigns as damaging. He is on tape going after the Colorado GOP and Dick Wadhams which constitutes Schaffer's campaign. He is silent on John McCain and continues to push Ron Paul which means he is not supportive of the Republican ticket. No where did I address his personal opinion or support of Bob Schaffer, only his damaging rhetoric against the party in a pivotal election year. George Lilly's attempts to chill discussion of his candidacy in the blogosphere with the threat of a lawsuit is deplorable.

George Lilly, a candidate who ran in CD-1 as the American Constitution Party candidate in 2004 and later converted to the Republican Party, sent the following notice to my personal email account this evening:

You have libeled me with your blog.  I have contributed money to Bob Schaffer on two ocasions for his Senatorial bid, and I have spoken well of him on many occasions and told people like Ryan Call (State Republican Legal Counsel for the Republican Party) as well as others, that I support Bob.  I have known Bob for close to twenty years, and I think he is an excellent person and legislator.  He is also friendly with Ron Paul, and thinks very highly of him as do I.  I recommend that you print an immediate retraction of your false allegations against me and issue an apology, or I will seek legal redress against you.
 
I am not a "lock step boot licking Republican" as many Republicans seem to be.  If the Republican leadership is wrong, I won't support them, because I answer to a higher authority than the Republican Party - namely my LORD and Savior Jesus Christ and the Biblical principles that guide my life.  That may mean nothing to you or a large number of Republicans today, but it's where I stand like it or not.
 
I have made a copy of your blog which I am keepiing on file, and I am sending this email to my supporters, so that you may get a "heads up" from someone other than myself.  If you doubt the veracity of my statement that I support Bob Schaffer, it is public record who gives money to a candidate.  You may also speak with Bob and ask him.  If you wish to speak with me personally before you make rash assertions about me, then please feel free to contact me.

The post that Mr. Lilly was referring to had actually already been deleted at the time he sent this email after I had reconsidered the CD-1 primary and decided I was too harsh on George Lilly's candidacy. The post opposed Mr. Lilly on the basis that he was running against the "establishment" and would not be a team player for the GOP ticket. I'll take George Lilly at his word that he supports Bob Schaffer and donated to his campaign and apologize for any confusion over the issue. My statement was based on items posted at Mr. Lilly's website that were harshy critical of the Colorado GOP and Bob Schaffer's campaign. It appears that George Lilly just has a problem with Dick Wadhams and those running Bob Schaffer's campaign as this video his campaign posted to YouTube reveals:

Not only does this video take shots at Dick Wadhams and the Republican Party, but it singles out a number of people as "Ron Paul supporters." In fact, I have spoken to several of the people pictured in this video who are not and never have been Ron Paul supporters and were none too happy about being called such; I wonder if any of them would be interested in pursuing a libel suit against George Lilly?

I stand by my statement that George Lilly as a "Ron Paul republican" who goes around to Denver GOP events attacking the "establishment" (as seen in his campaign video) is likely to be a drag on the other Republicans on the ticket in terms of vote margins in CD-1 and in terms of fundraising. George Lilly's supporters were disruptive at the CD-1 assembly and were responsible for many of the disruptions at the Colorado State Convention. I also question George Lilly's motivations for sending that email out to his list as, at least in the copy I received, my home address is prominently listed and would appear to be a veiled threat. I sure hope that my "heads up" doesn't involve a psychopath in the parking lot with a tire iron.

As George Lilly is new to the Republican Party, I am willing to forgive him for not realizing that frivolous lawsuits are frowned upon here. I would also like to suggest that he makes his campaign material a bit more clear in his support of Bob Schaffer as the only mention on his website is a video going after Schaffer's campaign manager and people are likely to get the wrong idea when you use your allotted time at public events railing against the Republican Party (again, see his campaign video).

If people have a perception problem of you then that's your fault, and if that perception caused you to only get 61% of the assembly vote against a homeless man then perhaps you should spend your time trying to correct it instead of threatening lawsuits against people who don't like you.

Update (12:53 AM):

Upon examining the original post which George Lilly is threatening me over, the passage he is upset about reads as:

At his public appearances at Denver County GOP events he has launched tirades against the Schaffer and McCain campaigns and has made it clear that he will not support the Republican ticket in November.

The post clearly specifies his rants against the Schaffer and McCain campaigns as damaging. He is on tape going after the Colorado GOP and Dick Wadhams which constitutes Schaffer's campaign. He is silent on John McCain and continues to push Ron Paul which means he is not supportive of the Republican ticket. No where did I address his personal opinion or support of Bob Schaffer, only his damaging rhetoric against the party in a pivotal election year. George Lilly's attempts to chill discussion of his candidacy in the blogosphere with the threat of a lawsuit is deplorable.