Hazlehurst’s Blog
Insight and commentary from John Hazlehurst

Colorado Springs: Battlefield of liberals, conservatives

There’s nothing better than a good, old-fashioned left/right bloodbath, especially when it involves our own fair city.

Lefty commentator David Sirota started the ball rolling with a bitingly snarky column in the Post, which also ran in the Gazette, characterizing Colorado Springs as “a shining example of what happens to a community when conservatives’ anti-tax policies are distilled into their most pure form …”

And if you think that’s a little mean, he was just getting started. He continues: “The next time you hear a conservative prattle on about how much he/she hates taxes and how the solution to all problems in America is to cut taxes, remember Colorado Springs. It is the anti-tax zealot’s nirvana - and it shows what America would look like if our politics continue to be dominated by the me-first, screw-everyone-else crowd and their tax-hating ways.”

Former Gazette editorial page editor, and present city councilmember Sean Paige promptly rose to the defense of our cruelly maligned, not-quite metropolis.

No doubt inspired by the absence of editorial constraints (“Paige, you have 800 words, and that’s it!”), Sean’s indignant piece in the Huffington Post ran on for nearly 1,900 words.

Characterizing the city’s current funding crisis as “a budget crunch…no different than (those currently experienced by) most American cities,” Paige claimed that the city is “…leagues ahead, in terms of livability and quality of life, of most places from which the ideological sniping comes.”

And Sirota? “Typical of the slams was this post by David Sirota in the Denver Huffington Post, which shows that he doesn’t know anything more about Colorado Springs than he knows about the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights. Here’s Sirota, spewing stupid.”

After listing all of  the “best places” awards that the city has won, and taking aim at those pesky, ill-informed lib’ruls, Sean concludes by saying, “Maybe what really infuriates liberals about Colorado Springs is that it demonstrates that you can have a great American city without the need for a great big government running things; that you can keep taxes in check and still deliver an outstanding quality of life; that people here will step up to do for themselves, the things government can’t or shouldn’t be doing for them. This town remains a magnet for transplants because it keeps the American dream affordable and attainable, by actually putting America’s limited government ideals into practice. Take all the pot shots you want, liberals, but Colorado Springs will get through this fiscal crunch and emerge on the other side stronger and better than ever.”

Sirota, no slouch as an incendiary, opinionated writer, replied in kind.

In yesterday’s Huffington Post, Sirota leveled both barrels at Paige, characterizing everything he said as arising from the “eternal delusions of the right-wing mind.”

“Paige says Colorado Springs attracts new residents and economic growth ‘by actually putting America’s limited government ideals into practice.’ In this, he asks us to forget that one of the city’s biggest employers is the defense industry - that is, an industry that has absolutely nothing to do with ‘limited government’ and everything to do with the hugest of Huge Government. Whether you support this Huge Government or not - whether you think it is a good or bad thing - it’s size and centrality to the Colorado Springs economy is undeniable, as is its antithesis to the concept of ‘limited’ or small government. You don’t have to trust me, the guy who Paige calls a ’statist’ (do people even use that red-baiting McCarthy-esque word anymore?). You can look at the $700 billion annual defense budget.”

OK, you two - just shut up. You’re both wrong.

You both see this city as through the distorting lens of your particular and quirky ideologies, and make the facts fit your own preconceptions.

Sean: David’s right. We contributed to this mess by embracing Doug Bruce’s taxophobia. And those “best places” rankings are highly dubious. For example, are we really one of the most drunken cities in America, as a recent survey seemed to show? And is Boston the least drunk? Or are the rankings derived from dubious metrics? And yeah, we’re more dependent upon guv’mint payrolls than any city in America … except Washington, D.C.  Volunteerism is fine - but who’s gonna patch the potholes?  Not me.

David: Sean’s right. With all its faults, the city’s a great place to live, and despite our current travails, is likely to stay that way. You can rant all you want about our problems,but we’re very far from being the poster child for American urban dysfunction. And besides, we’re the city every journalist dreams of - a city run by newspaper guys!

Journalists are former city councilmembers, and city councilmembers are former journalists. And we know that Colorado Springs taxpayers have always wised up eventually. They may load the gun, cock it and aim at their foot - but they never quite squeeze the trigger. And you may think that Sean’s a crazed, delusional right-winger, but he’s changed.

He used to be a crazed, delusional right-wing journalist, but now he’s a respected, comparatively moderate community leader … a role model for you!


Posted by John Hazlehurst on February 9th, 2010 :: Filed under Blog
Tags :: , , , , , , , , ,

Nullification, part II

Wow! I can see that the political philosophy of John C. Calhoun is alive and well in America today.

But here’s my point.

Clearly, elected officials in any state have the right to oppose, to question, to seek to amend, or to minimize the impacts of federal regulations/legislation that they deem inappropriate, badly drafted, burdensome, or unlikely to meet the goals that legislation purportedly seeks to achieve.

But states cannot simply brush aside legislation that has been duly enacted by the national government, and exempt themselves from its central provisions. That’s nullification-and that’s a recipe for enduring conflict.

It was instructive to read many of the posts, particularly those from folks whose dislike of the current administration and fear of the consequences of the nearly completed health care legislation is such that they’re apparently willing-even eager-to attempt nullification.

Today’s bitter, unrelieved partisanship is sadly reminiscent of the decades before the Civil War, when regional economic issues pitted the agrarian south against the industrial north, and abolitionists fought slavery.

For those of you who detest the president and his reform agenda, there’s a simple solution: vote for folks who will amend or overturn it. All this prattling about Ayn Rand & godless liberals is just hot air-if you don’t like it, organize! Don’t waste your time huffing and puffing-you need a majority in the House and the Senate.

So get to work, all you right-wing irredentist slackers!


Posted by John Hazlehurst on December 31st, 2009 :: Filed under Blog
Tags :: ,

Conservatives are … as conservatives do

Got a fancy, little four-color mailer from Congressman Doug Lamborn in the mail yesterday, decrying the stimulus bill. 

Lamborn wants us to know that he’ll “continue the fight to reduce spending, debt and taxes.”

Admirable goals, congressman, but how does your vow to reduce spending square with your willingness (nay, eagerness!) to spend tens of thousands of dollars upon “information mailings” to constituents?

Have you heard about e-mail? Of press releases via e-mail? Of submitting op-eds to newspapers? Of being interviewed on talk radio shows? 

Of course you have - and you use all of these means of communicating with your constituents. 

This flyer is headed “Public Document-Official Business.”  And beneath the heading are the words “This mailing was prepared, published and mailed at taxpayer expense.”

It’s not an official document, in the sense that a letter from, say, the Social Security Administration is an official document.  It’s just a political puff piece, designed only to bolster Lamborn’s political position.

Lamborn’s predecessor, a principled man unafraid to oppose the leaders of his own party when he believed that they had engaged in unethical behavior, never sent out such puff pieces.  Joel Hefley was an old-fashioned conservative, who believed that actions, not words, defined an elected official.

Lamborn would do well to emulate Hefley, and practice the frugality that he preaches.  But I’m betting that he won’t.

<- Back to CSBJ.com


Posted by John Hazlehurst on March 13th, 2009 :: Filed under Blog
Tags :: , , , , ,