The remarkable synchronization of the “swans” filling the stage was equaled by the impressive orchestration and the absolutely amazing performance of Maria Mosina as “Odette” (the Swan Queen) and “Odile” (the evil swan).  The costuming and sets were exquisitely done — creating an atmosphere which instantaneously transformed the audience to a different era.

With a unique Fourth Act written for the Colorado Ballet, this beautiful version of “Swan Lake” is a “Must See” event.  Tickets still are available but the performances end Sunday, October 23rd, so get them now at www.bit.ly/CoBallet.

=========================================================================

Aaron Harber hosts “The Aaron Harber Show” seen on Channel 3 KCDO-TV (K3 Colorado) on Sundays at 8:00 pm and at www.HarberTV.com.  He also hosts “Colorado Now! TM” seen Sundays at 8:30 pm on Channel 3.  It can be viewed 24/7 at www.Colorado-Now.com.  Unknown to most, he was the first President & Chairman of the Board of the Nancy Spanier Dance Theatre of Colorado and served on the Board of Directors of the Boulder Philharmonic Orchestra.  Nevertheless, he knows little about music or dance — except what he likes.  Send e-mail to Aaron@HarberTV.com.  (C) Copyright 2011 by USA Talk Network, Inc. and Aaron Harber.  All rights reserved.

=========================================================================

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE — Denver, CO.  (PLEASE FORWARD)  Sunday, October 9th, at 8:00 pm on K3 Colorado (KCDO-TV Channel 3 and Channel 28.3), the Administrator of the EPA, Lisa Jackson (the first person of color to hold this position), who also is a member of a Presidential Cabinet, is the featured guest on “The Aaron Harber Show”

In the broadcast premiere of Part 1 of an exclusive two-part interview, Jackson discusses her tenure at the head of the EPA, the policies she has implemented, and controversial decisions of the EPA — including the regulation of greenhouse gases.  The program also now is available for viewing 24/7 at www.HarberTV.com.  Part 2 will be broadcast on Sunday, October 16th, also at 8:00 pm, and also will be available online for worldwide viewing prior to the broadcast.

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **

At 8:30 pm, “The Aaron Harber Show: Colorado Now!”  features the return of “The Energy Roundtable” series — a comprehensive, nonpartisan look at energy and related issues in Colorado and throughout the nation.  More information about the series can be found at www.bit.ly/EnergyUSA.

Based on a succession of one-one-one interviews at the nationally-acclaimed Energy Epicenter conference, the four-part series presents a range of opinions from Energy Industry leaders and experts, government and regulatory officials, environmentalists, and third party participants.

“The Energy Roundtable” is considered to be one of the most in-depth, longitudinal presentations of energy-related issues in the nation.  By involving all stakeholders, it gives viewers the multitude of perspectives they need in order to make well-informed decisions.  The program also is now available for viewing 24/7 at www.Colorado-Now.com.

Parts 2, 3, and 4 will be broadcast on October 16th and 23rd and November 6th, respectively — all on Sundays at 8:30 pm.

Guests on these editions of “The Energy Roundtable” include:

• Mark Brownstein, Environmental Defense Fund Energy Program Deputy Director
• Jack Coleman, Energy North America Managing Partner & General Counsel
• Peter Dea, President & CEO, Cirque Resources; former President & CEO, Western Gas Resources
• John Hickenlooper, Colorado Governor’; former Petroleum Geologist
• David Hobbs, IHS Chief Energy Strategist; Author, “Fueling North America’s Energy Future”
• John Hofmeister, CEO, Citizens for Affordable Energy; former President, SHELL Oil Company
• James Martin, Environmental Protection Agency Regional Administrator
• Scott Moore, ANADARKO Vice President of Marketing; and Chairman, Colorado Oil & Gas Association
• Dave Neslin, Executive Director, Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission
• Bill Owens, Director, Bill Barrett Corporation; Managing Director, Front Range Resources; former Colorado Governor
• Bill Ritter, Director, Center for the New Energy Economy; former Colorado Governor
• Tisha Conoly Schuller, President & CEO, Colorado Oil & Gas Association; former Vice President, Tetra Tech
• Christopher Smith, U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Energy for Oil & Natural Gas
• Jay Still, Pioneer Natural Resources Executive Vice President

Please inform others of the broadcast schedule and both the televised and online availability of these special public affairs programs.  To go to our Facebook Page go www.FB.com/AaronHarberShow .  To follow us on Twitter, please go to www.Twitter.com/AaronHarber or send a text saying “Follow AaronHarber” to 40404.  Thank you.

# # #

The modern adaptation of “The Liar” is more relevant than ever by showcasing both the intended and unintended effects of dishonesty in communications about relationships.  Frequently hilarious when showcasing how gullible we can be yet simultaneously poignant in how lies known as such often are tolerated, the falsehoods in “The Liar” seem obvious yet consistently are demonstrably effective in achieving the intended result of the scoundrel uttering them.

The comedy’s highlight is the ability of the main character, Dorante, to manufacture lies which initially are believable, in part, because they are so sincerely and exquisitely told.  As he digs himself into one hole after another, however, he finds himself forced to use even greater fabrications to temporarily save himself — a willingness to sacrifice the future for the immediacy of transitory comfort or ephemeral success today.

A magniloquent verbal Ponzi schemer, Dorente preys on his victims’ gullibility and robs them of their innocence.  Even those who see through his scheming somehow still manage to get ensnared in the fury of his whirlwind of lies.  With today’s political realm deeply implicated by insinuation, “The Liar,” unfortunately, is as relevant now as it was almost four centuries ago.  That may have been the attraction to the audience, which was surprisingly young for a playwright (Pierre Corneille) who died in 1684 and about whom few probably had been aware.

Go to www.DenverCenter.org or call (303) 893-4100 for tickets at the Denver Center’s intimate theater-in-the-round Space Theatre for ticket through October 16th.

=========================================================================
Aaron Harber hosts “The Aaron Harber Show” seen on Channel 3 KCDO-TV (K3 Colorado) on Sundays at 8:00 pm and at www.HarberTV.com.  He also hosts “Colorado Now! TM” seen Sundays at 8:30 pm on Channel 3.  Both can be viewed 24/7 at www.Colorado2010.com.  Send e-mail to Aaron@HarberTV.com.  (C) Copyright 2011 by USA Talk Network, Inc. and Aaron Harber.  All rights reserved.
=========================================================================

• The President’s best chance of re-election is based on the assumption any of the current candidates in the Republican field won’t match up.  Although President Obama is tied in many polls with a “theoretical” Republican opponent, when a specific candidate is named, he comes out on top for every head-to-head match-up (although sometimes by only a few percentage points).
• The President will benefit from a long, drawn-out Republican primary election battle which could last months (i.e., forcing the remaining candidates to take extreme positions to carve out support, with those positions mortally damaging the eventual nominee in the General Election).  This is promoted by the fact there are relatively low-cost ways for the current crop of Republican candidates to stay in the race indefinitely.
• Even if the “best” Republican is nominated, the odds are high he or she will make a fatal mistake without the help of an opponent.  This is more likely because few of the candidates previously have been on the national stage.
• Despite the fact the President’s move to the center disenchanted his left-of-center base, those voters still will cast ballots for Obama.  They may not do much more but, in the end, Obama wants, needs, and will get those votes.
• Because it is unlikely the Democratic base will be as energized as it was in 2008, the President and his team believe the loss of that enthusiasm can be replaced by prodigious fundraising (which the President’s campaign already is proving quite capable of doing).  Hence, dollars will replace the energy, passion, and fervour which was emblematic of the 2008 campaign.

In essence, from a policy perspective, the President is deploying a “Prevent D” approach — the play-it-safe strategy some teams use in sports when they are far ahead of their opposition.

Hence, don’t expect anything other than marginal proposals from the White House until Election Day.  Bold, ambitious proposals will not be unveiled — with the excuse they would be dead on arrival anyway thanks to a Republican-controlled House of Representatives — so many don’t expect much from the White House now that the Presidential Campaign is in full swing.

Unfortunately for Obama, Prevent D strategies often fail and, in this case such an approach may be even more risky because he isn’t far ahead of many of the candidates in recent head-to-head match-ups.  However, the President may believe, based on the above-cited reasons, America will embrace him once again, especially after voters examine their soon-to-be-limited choices.

To again use a sports analogy, the President’s actual stratagem may be to imitate Muhammad Ali’s famous “Rope-A-Dope” strategy in which he took numerous blows from his opponent while moving along the boxing ring’s ropes so, as he bounced back and forth, many of the swings of his opponent missed their targets and much of the energy of the blows landed by his opponent was absorbed by Ali’s body as well as by Ali being forced against the springy rope.

As his opponent continued his ineffective assault and as his adversary’s energy was dissipated by Ali’s clever use of physics, he then moved in for the kill.  Will a worn-out Republican nominee face the same fate?

With these strategies in mind, Obama and his team actually may be hoping the Republican field — which few voters can fully name — continues to flail away at the President while moving further to the right.  The questions to be answered are, “How will Republicans respond to the President’s rope-a-dope plan and will that strategy succeed or fail by November 6, 2012?”

======================================================================

Aaron Harber hosts “The Aaron Harber Show” seen on Channel 3 KCDO-TV (K3 Colorado) on Sundays at 8:00 pm as well as on COMCAST Entertainment Television and  ION Television (KPXC-TV) and is viewable 24/7 at www.HarberTV.com.  Send e-mail to Aaron@HarberTV.com.  (C) Copyright 2011 by USA Talk Network, Inc. and Aaron Harber.  All rights reserved.

=======================================================================

Carroll uses the accusations — (1) made by a criminal with a vendetta against Denver mayoral candidate Michael Hancock (who went on to win the election anyway), and (2) proven to be false — as an example of something potentially important which most voters missed.  I would argue that, even if the accusations were true, they were not nearly as important as some have posited.

One argument against mail balloting is the vast majority of voters cast their ballots (e.g., +90%) prior to Election Day and, therefore, those voters “miss” the opportunity to change their minds after such revelations occur at the end of a campaign.  Actually, for a number of reasons, nothing could be further from what we want our democracy to be for several reasons.

First, are we really missing critically important information about candidates who have been at hundreds of events, who have campaigned for months, who have answered thousands of questions, and who have been investigated by news organizations and opposition research teams (some of which hire private investigators)?  By the last week of almost any campaign, everyone has “heard it all” — ad nauseam — and has made their decisions based on what has occurred over the past several months or years — rather than some alleged last-minute “breaking story.”

Second, think about the nature of end-of-the-campaign “revelations.”  Do they typically involve substantive policy issues?  Are they commonly related to the office in question and how the candidate will govern?  The answer is “Never” or close to that, so voters usually aren’t missing anything relevant.  Last-minute claims typically are malicious personal attacks against a candidate’s character.

Third, in the current political era, it is rare any new adverse information is found at the end of a campaign.  Most such accusations are known well in advance by almost every Media entity.  They typically are “shopped” by agents or sympathizers of an opponent weeks or months before Election Day.  By any standard, the Hancock example in Denver was old news because the accusations had been investigated in past years — with no verifiable information ever found which implicated Hancock.

Fourth, news organizations who abide by high journalistic standards, such as The Post, do their best to vet any claims against a candidate but today find themselves in competition with entities — primarily online — which do not care about substantiating outrageous claims.  These less-responsible entities are willing to publish “information” regardless of its accuracy.  In some cases they do it due to their political bias.  In other cases they do it because they do not have the resources of a daily newspaper or because they like the attention.  Last-minute claims put enormous pressure on bona fide Media entities but those with integrity will not change their modus operandi.  Mail balloting actually mitigates the impact on the electoral process of the growing number of those standards-free Media entities.

Fifth, despite the titillating nature of typical last-minute accusations, voters are far less interested, as part of their electoral decision process, in many of the kinds of salacious news items many Media entities prominently publish (including electronically).

Sixth, again voters are more sophisticated than many of us in the Press believe.  No one has seen a scientific correlation between personal scandal and political performance.  Although it is easy to say, “Someone who breaks his or her marital vows will do the same to the electorate,” there is no evidence this is true.  Many of us admire great leaders who had messy lives.  And most voters know personal relationships can be extremely complex. And they often are compassionate — when properly, genuinely, and timely asked for such forgiveness.

The reality is mail balloting actually protects voters from the kind of scurrilous last-minute attacks which most Americans despise.  It forces those who practice the Politics of Personal Destruction to play their hands earlier — giving the Press time to investigate claims and giving those who are unfairly attacked time to respond.  If anything, mail balloting should be encouraged by those seeking to address this abysmal aspect of modern politics.

======================================================================

Aaron Harber hosts “The Aaron Harber Show” seen on Channel 3 KCDO-TV (K3 Colorado) on Sundays at 8:00 pm as well as on COMCAST Entertainment Television and  ION Television (KPXC-TV) and is viewable 24/7 at www.HarberTV.com.  Send e-mail to Aaron@HarberTV.com.  (C) Copyright 2011 by USA Talk Network, Inc. and Aaron Harber.  All rights reserved.

=======================================================================

State of the Union Speech Charts Two-Year Course

Colorado played key roles in President Obama’s State of the Union speech.  First, one of the President’s policy proposals focused on aggressive goals for Energy Policy, with a structure almost identical to the course charted in Governor Ritter’s “New Energy Economy.”

The President labeled Natural Gas as a clean fuel needed to achieve his energy objectives — honeyed words to Colorado’s myriad companies in the industry.  Even coal received a reprieve from the President when he included “Clean Coal” as one of the energy sources of the future.  Coal provides about 45% of electrical production today so, if it becomes “Clean Coal,” it would still be a significant electrical energy source.  Oil accounts for only 1% of electrical power generation today so position could be unchanged.  The other sources account for the balance of 54% and already are in Obama’s approved categories.

Second, Bruce Randolph School in Denver received a major “shout out” from the President, who highlighted the school’s almost Phoenix-like rise from the ashes of failure to graduating 97% of its senior class.  Former Principal Kristin Waters, assigned by then Denver Public Schools Superintendent and now U.S. Senator Michael Bennet to rescue the school, did just that — demonstrating the dramatic progress which can be made in K-12 education with the right leadership and environment.

Obama’s focus on finding paths to educational success included a call to find better ways to reward good teachers and dismiss bad ones resonated across the State and nation.  While those words warmed the hearts of education reformers seeking greater flexibility and school choice, the President made certain his educational union backers were semi-mollified by his call for teachers to be treated with greater respect.

Third, U.S. Senator Mark Udall was the biggest winner of the Colorado delegation.  His proposal to have Democrats and Republicans change their pattern of segregated seating and, instead, mix the parties was an outright success.  Udall’s suggestion was the talk of Washington and, although initially dismissed by some, it quickly became recognized as a simple act to display the potential for civility and bipartisanship.  Udall, who is well-liked by his colleagues in the Senate, now has the opportunity to follow-up and begin a long-term initiative.

Camera shots during the speech showed different clusters of members of both parties sitting together.  The juxtaposition of some was amusing to those who know Senators and Congresspersons on sight but one of the best shots was that of the Colorado House members all sitting in a row.  Cory Gardner, Mike Coffman, Ed Perlmutter received solid “face time” but the whole Colorado delegation (including DeGette, Polis, Tipton, and Lamborn) set an example for the nation.
Obama’s themes focused on the need to make targeted, strategic investments in education, science and innovation, and infrastructure to move the Economy forward while, at the same time, reining in spending.  What was missing were specifics on how the Federal Budget could be balanced.

Obama proposed eliminating subsidies for the Oil Industry and reinvesting them in renewable energy sources.  He also called for simplifying the tax structure — a proposal which should be well-received on Capitol Hill — and which has the potential to actually raise revenues if rates are lowered and deductions are eliminated (i.e., trade the hundreds of billions spent on bookkeepers, accounts, tax lawyers, and internal staff for new tax revenue so the net cost is zero but the government gets additional revenues).  It will be a challenge to see how Obama runs the gauntlet of special interests which will fight any attempt to gore their tax policy oxen.

Overall, the tone of the President’s discourse was positive and even uplifting.  It was a “Yes, we can do it” speech — as much cheerleading as it was policy.  By starting with a focus on Americans as one big family, Obama created an atmosphere conducive to working together.

Obama’s argument for unification of the American people was direct and compelling.  He argued the United States cannot afford to compete within itself but must find ways to work together internally to compete on the world stage.  With stiff competition from China, India, and other countries, Obama urged Americans to reorient their thinking and focus on the challenges presented by global competition.

The President’s challenge now is to translate his inspirational words into specific policies which will pass muster in a Republican-controlled House and a Democratic-controlled Senate.  While that split will help the President by making passage of extreme measures from the Left or Right nearly impossible, it is unclear how easy any legislation will be to pass in the coming months.

====================================================================== 

Aaron Harber hosts “The Aaron Harber Show” seen on Channel 3 KCDO-TV (K3 Colorado) on Sundays at 8:00 pm and “Colorado Now!” at 8:30 pm as well as on COMCAST Entertainment Television and ION Television (KPXC-TV).  All programs are viewable 24/7 at www.HarberTV.com and www.Colorado-Now.com.  Send e-mail to Aaron@HarberTV.com.  (C) Copyright 20111by USA Talk Network, Inc. and Aaron Harber.  All rights reserved.

=======================================================================

The tragic events in Tucson bring home the point that America’s political dialog needs to change now.  As the ultimate sacrifices made due to the Politics of Personal Destruction demonstrated, we need to relearn how to debate and argue without the threatening rhetoric so commonly unleashed today.

While most Americans calmly evaluate wild assertions and don’t give credence to calls for “action” against “targeted” individuals (such as those who are illustrated with gun-sights on their districts, offices, homes, or persons), the reality is a small segment of the population is differently affected — misguidedly believing such calls are justifications for violence.

If we don’t begin to make changes now, we will scare off many of the best people we could have as public servants and leaders.  Already intimidated by the nonstop litany of false accusations made in attack ads and rationally concerned about the lack of privacy holding office entails, highly qualified citizens otherwise willing to serve will be intimidated further by the possibility of loss of their lives as well as harm to their loved ones.

Democrats and Republicans alike have effectively deployed the Politics of Personal Destruction with its efficacy reaching new heights in 2010 due to (1) the disconnect between candidate campaigns (where personal responsibility still exists) and third party groups (who have no palpable accountability whatsoever) and (2) the consistent effectiveness of Negative Advertising.  Third party organizations have free rein to say anything without direct repercussions and, as a result, have lowered the political realm even further than once imagined.

It is time for every American to take the actions necessary to restore civility to the process and to reject the approaches so effectively used today.  By educating ourselves on the issues, by listening to different points of view, and by learning how to “disagree agreeably,” we can mitigate the effectiveness of contemporary wicked approaches.

The Media needs to play an even greater role than ever before in promoting this change.  We will require leadership at all levels as a purposeful effort must be deployed to consistently, fairly, and objectively inform and engage the public  — with the Media challenging us daily to do better.  And as each of us makes the commitment to learn more, to become better-informed, and to work at becoming more tolerant of opinions different from our own — we can change and improve America.

One initiative just starting in Colorado is a new public affairs television program titled “Colorado Now!”  Its purpose is to allow citizens to see their public officials firsthand and to show how, when diverse perspectives and people meet, there can be productive exchanges which are civil and mutually respectful.  For more information, please go to www.HarberTV.com/CoNow.

====================================================================== 

Aaron Harber hosts “The Aaron Harber Show” and “Colorado Now with Aaron Harber” seen on Channel 3 KCDO-TV (K3 Colorado) on Sundays at 8:00 pm and 8:30 pm as well as n COMCAST Entertainment Television on Mondays at 7:30 pm.  It also is on ION Television (KPXC-TV) and is viewable 24/7 at www.HarberTV.com.  Send e-mail to Aaron@HarberTV.com.  (C) Copyright 2010 by USA Talk Network, Inc. and Aaron Harber.  All rights reserved.

=======================================================================

Many Americans wonder why their political leaders cannot get along and appear to be unable to solve the tough problems facing the country.  The reason is simple — our leaders are afraid to lead because they fear us.  They know the truth but are scared to death that, if they reveal it, we will vote them out of office.

They see us as spoiled children — wanting more from government yet simultaneously claiming we want to shrink it (e.g., “Get the government out of health care and leave my Medicare alone”).  They see us as unwilling to sacrifice to any significant degree and they worry any call for sacrifice will result in their electoral loss.

Consider any politician who calls for us to pay higher taxes for the benefits we receive rather than borrowing trillions from future generations.  Such a “Tax and Spend” policy is far more responsible than our current “Borrow and Spend” approach but we consistently disparage the former and support the latter.

If a politician calls for higher taxes or for the severe reductions in government services which would be requisite to balance the federal budget if no tax increases were to occur, he or she immediately would be met by an opponent who would argue, “No, we don’t need higher taxes or severe losses of benefits.  We should cut taxes (or at least tax rates) as that would boost the Economy and actually result in more tax revenues because more people would be working and would be paying taxes — and even if they were paying taxes at a lower rate, the aggregate amount of taxes collected would increase.”

Most voters — when choosing between these two scenarios understandably would choose the rosier, lower-tax, have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too option.  This is consistent with how politicians use “Perception Politics” to win elections — manipulating how we already feel rather than trying to substantively change our minds about issues and candidates.  It is easier for politicians to work with what we are than try to change us — that is the beauty of Perception Politics.  And who doesn’t want to have it all without paying for it now?

In the example of balancing the Federal Budget, however, the problem is there are limits to lowering tax rates for two reasons.  First, at some point, tax revenues will decrease.  Obviously, if rates were cut to 1%, revenues would be almost nonexistent, so the question becomes “What rate structure minimizes tax burdens, maximizes incentives for economic activity, and generates the maximum amount of tax revenue?”

Second, tax revenues often depend on the state of the Economy.  For example, when capital gains tax rates are cut during a time when there are huge profits amassed in assets subject to capital gains (such as real estate or stocks), one can expect significant tax revenue increases from tax rate cuts as asset owners cash in to take advantage of rate reductions and then purchase other assets.

Cutting the same capital gains tax rates when the values of such assets have plateaued or even decreased (as is the case with most real estate and many stocks today) could result in lower tax collections, however, even if owners had an incentive to sell such assets (which they don’t).  So we have to be thoughtful about where and when to cut tax rates.

Because we have failed to fully inform and educate the American public about the specifics of these issues, citizens are more likely to succumb to the most attractive claims politicians make.  Once fully informed, however, the public would be less susceptible to the erroneous and misleading albeit attractive assertions made by many politicians.

Thus, educating ourselves about economics, for example, could serve to inoculate us against politicians of any stripe who depend more on demagoguery than facts to get our votes.  Where our system has failed is neither major political party has shown any sincere interest in fact-based discussions.  Instead, each continues to rely on Perception Politics as the most efficacious way to manipulate voters.  That is why one party wins in one or two election cycles and the other does the same a few election cycles later.

Only when there is a long-term investment in the education of voters will the approach used by politicians change.  Unfortunately, those who win are the ones who govern and today’s winners see themselves as the beneficiaries of Perception Politics while the losers see Perception Politics as the quickest path back to the top.

We can change the winners into true leaders if each of us answers the question, “How do we, as citizens, become accurately informed so we can help our leaders make better decisions?”  By demonstrating our expertise and understanding of the issues, we can give our elected officials the courage they need to make the tough decisions America requires to prosper once again.  Until we do that, however, our leaders will fear us too much to do what is best for our country.

======================================================================

Aaron Harber hosts “The Aaron Harber Show” seen on Channel 3 KCDO-TV (K3 Colorado) on Sundays at 8:00 pm as well as n COMCAST Entertainment Television on Mondays at 7:30 pm.  It also is on ION Television (KPXC-TV) and is viewable 24/7 at www.HarberTV.com.  Send e-mail to Aaron@HarberTV.com.  (C) Copyright 2010 by USA Talk Network, Inc. and Aaron Harber.  All rights reserved.

=======================================================================

When a former gubernatorial candidate wrote “Thanks for these amazingly accurate predictions,” I realized that, while many of my correct prognostications were helped by my being objective about the outcome of the 12 contests for which I predicted all 12 winners, a good number of the predictions were easy to make.  Here was my analysis prior to Election Day.

U.S. SENATE.  This was the toughest race to call because I had thought for some time Republican Ken Buck would win it thanks to the Republican wave but, after looking at the pounding he was taking for several campaign-ending comments, I predicted Democrat Michael Bennet would win by one point.  He did.  Buck definitely snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and probably could have won by (a) responding faster to a series of outrageous claims against him and (b) following Bennet’s strategy of minimizing contact with the Press (although, personally, I don’t like that approach!).

GOVERNOR.  It was easy to predict John Hickenlooper would win this race and he did.  Thanks to the mutual loathing between Dan Maes and Tom Tancredo all Hickenlooper had to do was find a way to pass the time.  Plus everyone liked the Mayor — including his two opponents.  Initially Tancredo was a spoiler who made it impossible for Maes to win.  Then they switched positions with Tancredo eclipsing Maes but forced to focus on his conservative base as Maes became the spoiler.  Tancredo never had enough time to collect sufficient centrist and unaffiliated votes to form a plurality.  Hickenlooper could have campaigned from Erie (Pennsylvania) and he still would have won.

ATTORNEY GENERAL.  Democrat Stan Garnett needed an extra $500,000 plus six more months to catch incumbent Republican John Suthers.  Garnett could not get issues to resonate and the race was drowned out by bigger position and ballot issue contests.  This was a contest where Garnett should have gotten some traction but Suthers did a good defensive job.  The dominance of other campaigns made it difficult for either candidate to be heard.

SECRETARY OF STATE.  Both candidates started glacially with incumbent Democrat Bernie Buescher caught up running his office and Republican challenger Scott Gessler consumed with his law practice.  Gessler caught the Republican wave and focused on Big Picture issues but was accused of being partisan.  Buescher focused on how well he was managing the office and his accomplishments while in office for just 18 months but that did not exactly catch fire with citizens.  Not many voters paid attention to any of this.

TREASURER.  Colorado hasn’t seen such a contest for this position as incumbent Democrat Cary Kennedy fiercely battled Republican challenger Walker Stapleton.  While in most years, Kennedy’s name would have helped her, it probably didn’t this time.  Known as a smart, capable, straight-shooter, Kennedy strayed from her focused-on-the-facts reputation by launching a last-minute attack using a DUI charge Stapleton had a decade ago and extrapolated this made him unfit for office.  It altered voters’ positive impression of Kennedy as a not-your-typical-politician.  Now she was just like everyone else and enough votes went to Stapleton — one of the nicest guys you could meet — for him to squeak by.

1ST C.D.  The biggest surprise in the victory by Democratic incumbent Diana DeGette was her massive margin over impressive Republican challenger Dr. Michael Fallon.  DeGette was partying as if it were 2006 or 2008 again.  She transformed the Republican wave into a ripple in Denver.

2ND C.D.  The numbers were similarly overwhelming for incumbent Democrat Jared Polis in his victory over Republican challenger Stephen Bailey.  Without any financial support, Bailey ran a good campaign but knew Polis had the ability to bring out the big guns if he ever felt threatened.  Polis never felt threatened and coasted to victory.

3RD C.D.  Three-term incumbent John Salazar faced a tough challenge from Republican State Representative Scott Tipton.  Both candidates had a lot of outside help but Tipton adroitly rode the Republican wave in what frequently has been a conservative district.  Tipton stayed on message, campaigned ferociously, and knew he had the momentum.  Salazar was an excellent fit for the District so his loss was a surprise to many.

4TH C.D.  Similar to the 3rd C.D., Republican challenger and State Representative Cory Gardner ran a solid campaign against incumbent Democrat Betsy Markey to win the District.  Gardner was seen by many as the ideal representative for the 4th and voters agreed.  Markey ran a solid campaign but the Republican wave probably felt like a tsunami to her.

5TH C.D.  Republican incumbent Doug Lamborn easily dispatched Democrat Kevin Bradley, who had less resources and visibility than any other Democratic challenger.

6TH C.D.  Democratic nominee John Flerlage gamely tried to make a go of his race against incumbent Mike Coffman but it was futile given (1) the political configuration of the District, (2) Coffman’s long-term record of political success, (3) his good fit with the District, and (4) the Republican wave.

7TH C.D.  Democratic incumbent Ed Perlmutter ran for his political life and saved it as Republican challenger and Aurora City Councilman Ryan Frazier offered a tough challenge.  Rather than parrying the seeming contradiction that Frazier’s charter school took the very stimulus funds Frazier had railed against (e.g., by saying, “So what?  Once the funds were made available, we played by the rules and sought them…”), Frazier appeared to be a deer frozen in the headlights.  It wasn’t the only factor though as Perlmutter consistently exploited every mistake Frazier made.

WILD CARD?  An interesting possibility is the sponsors of Amendment 63 — an effort to contest President Obama’s health care legislation — may have unwittingly directed anger away from Democratic candidates in Colorado and served, instead, as a safety valve for those upset with the Administration’s health care policies.  Could Michael Bennet owe his victory to the Independence Institute and John Caldara?  Stranger things have happened.

====================================================================== 

Aaron Harber hosts “The Aaron Harber Show” seen on Channel 3 KCDO-TV (K3 Colorado) on Sundays at 8:00 pm and on COMCAST Entertainment Television on Mondays at 7:30 pm.  It also is on ION Television (KPXC-TV) and is viewable 24/7 at www.HarberTV.com.  Send e-mail to Aaron@HarberTV.com.  (C) Copyright 2010 by USA Talk Network, Inc. and Aaron Harber.  All rights reserved.

=======================================================================

Waking up on Wednesday, November 3rd — after just 2½ hours of sleep after watching election returns with the Democrats and then the Republicans at their respective Election Night headquarter parties in Denver — I felt something was missing as I turned on the radio and then the television.

What was that sound?  No, it wasn’t a sound I heard that caught my attention; rather, it was the absence of sound which was so soothing.  Not a single political advertisement was assaulting me!  Who would have thought the absence of something could be such a blessing?

Most people — whether political experts or members of the general public — agreed this year’s political ads, as a group, were the worst ever.  With the overwhelming percentage being negative, it was easy to become soured on both the attackers and the attackees.

The problem is attack ads work — we pay more attention to them and we remember more about the messages they convey than positive ads.  They also are intentionally deployed to demotivate certain groups of voters so those people will be less likely to support a candidate or even to cast their votes.

Changing this dynamic is difficult because, with the First Amendment on their side, those who sponsor advertisements which are misleading or even grossly dishonest know they have constitutional protection.  Courtesy, politeness, and mutual respect do not enter the political equation.  Watchwords such as “All’s fair in love, war, and politics,” “You only govern if you win” and “Show me a good loser and I’ll show you a loser” are the dominant operating philosophies of campaign strategists.

Unless we take action, because political campaign managers know we remember negative ad content at a much higher rate than positive content, the ads will only get worse unless we take action against them.  Otherwise the preponderance of political ads in tight race (e.g., 75% or more) will continue to be negative and unscrupulous.  To change this, several actions must be undertaken in concert.

The Press needs to play a greater role serving as fact-checking sources and highlighting ads with false or distorted claims.  Some organizations make tepid efforts, at best, to take on this challenge but usually are overwhelmed by the sheer volume of ads.  The result is they may analyze only one-tenth of the ads to which voters are exposed.

Local news sources should take advantage of some of the national fact-checking efforts and integrate those findings into their own news reports.  FactCheck.org, PolitiFact.com, and others provide excellent sources of information which can be the starting point for local news sources verifying facts.

Burying objective analyses of ads or keeping them too concise lessens the effectiveness of any watchdog effort.  The analyses should be front and center.  Newspapers should make their stories the Front Page news of a section or even of the entire paper.  Television stations, for example, when finding an egregiously erroneous advertisement should (1) offer free response time to the unfairly attacked party, (2) run a “Fact Check” disclaimer, (3) have a serious discussion of the ad by a bipartisan panel, and/or (4) have the courage to pull the ad (which one or more Colorado television stations did during this election cycle).

It is easy for a broadcaster to say, “It’s a Free Country and candidates can say whatever they want.  If a candidate or committee’s advertisement distorts the truth, the opposition is free to buy an advertisement to counter the false ad with a response.”  The line between Free Speech and False Advertising will almost always be drawn in favor of Free Speech but forcing a candidate or committee to spend money to correct a falsehood is an unfair burden if the person or entity being attacked does not have the resources to respond.

Just because candidates and campaigns have the right to lie about those they oppose does not mean that kind of behaviour should be tolerated.  It is time to more openly discuss this bad behaviour rather than accept it as a fait accompli.

Television and radio stations hold a broadcast license granted to them by the Federal Government on behalf of the people of the United States.  They have an obligation to provide a public service to their communities.  Perhaps it is time for these stations to reflect on how they could better serve America with their segment of the public airwaves.

It is time to openly consider the inherent conflict of interest between the public service responsibilities of radio and television stations and their corporate mission to maximize advertising revenue.  After all, it is difficult or even undesirable, from a business perspective, to be responsible for policing your customers — especially when they are paying you billions of dollars every two years.

Independent nonpartisan initiatives (such as the 2006 Truth In Political Advertising Project in Colorado — www.TIPAP.org) need to be supported and encouraged to start early in every election cycle.  These entities have proven they can serve as a widely-accepted governor on the behaviour of candidates and campaign committees on both a local and national scale, especially if the Press highlights their findings.  In the case of the TIPAP, its effect was lauded by people ranging from Bill Armstrong to Bill Clinton.

A large-scale effort by an organization such as the TIPA Project is needed to address the sheer volume of political ads so there can be an immediate (within 24 hours and, ideally, same-day) response to every false ad.

Truly nonpartisan efforts such as the TIPA Project need to be made a permanent fixture on the political landscape — with universities and colleges involved with news operations on an ongoing basis.  Such programs then could serve as a stable source of evaluations for news outlets — ranging from newspapers to bloggers to the television and radio stations making tough decisions about how to deal with exceptionally unfair ads.

Voters need to learn enough about the candidates and issues so negative advertising is blunted by a foundation built on facts.  Such a foundation will make negative advertising less effective and force candidates and campaigns to be more substantive.  Voters need to consider ways to electorally punish candidates and their supporters who unfairly malign opponents.

At the same time, voters need to be more forgiving.  If a candidate made a mistake one, two or three decades ago and paid his or her debt to Society, perhaps we should be more willing to accept he or she has changed or, at the minimum, met his or her obligations.  We need to be more willing to give second chances and be thoughtful about how relevant and important, if at all, a past transgression might be.  If voters were more forgiving, the effectiveness of many attack ads could be blunted.  If attack ads were to become less effective, candidates and campaigns would be forced to focus more on the issues and be more substantive.

Unless we take action now, the withering assault of the upcoming 2012 election cycle will make us pine for the “good ol’ days” of the 2010 campaign.

=================================================================== 

Aaron Harber hosts “The Aaron Harber Show” seen on Channel 3 KCDO-TV (K3 Colorado) on Sundays at 8:00 pm and on COMCAST Entertainment Television on Mondays at 7:30 pm.  It also is on ION Television (KPXC-TV) and is viewable 24/7 at www.HarberTV.com.  He also hosted “Colorado Election 2010” (www.Colorado2010.com).  Send e-mail to Aaron@HarberTV.com.  (C) Copyright 2010 by USA Talk Network, Inc. and Aaron Harber.  All rights reserved.

=======================================================================