- Email this
- Print this
- Comments
- Change text size
- Subscribe to print edition
- iPod friendly
It's rare that incumbent officeholders are denied their party's nomination for re-election. But there are times when such an action is both likely and appropriate.
In El Paso County, there's a good chance Republicans will dump Rep. Douglas Bruce in favor of Mark Waller in House District 15. While Bruce has championed some good causes, his brief tenure in the General Assembly has shown that he lacks the temperament and demeanor to be an effective legislator. Bruce is a dogmatic absolutist who tends to behave like an anti-social boor and gives Republicans a bad name. Maybe he should change parties and give Libertarians a bad name.
At the other end of the GOP spectrum is University of Colorado Regent Paul Schauer, who's being challenged by Dr. Jim Geddes, a Sedalia physician and CU alumnus. I've known Schauer for years and, unlike Bruce, he's affable and soft-spoken. The problem is he lacks philosophical fortitude. As a state legislator for 20 years, Schauer capably represented the moderate-to-liberal wing of the party. As a CU regent, he's gone native in Boulder and aligned himself with liberal Democrats on the board and with the leftist faculty establishment.
There's a war of ideas raging in higher education, and Schauer has shown himself to be a pacifist. Conservatives are fighting for more representation within faculties and in subject matter. Schauer sided with the Democrats to stymie the creation of a Department of Western Civilization at CU and joined them again to oppose Steve Bosley as board chair.
Bosley, a hard-working and principled conservative, would have been perfect for the job. Instead, Schauer voted with Democrats to elect Pat Hayes. It's one thing for Hayes to be a soft Republican - she represents the 7th Congressional District, a swing district that leans Democratic. But Schauer serves staunchly conservative Douglas County in the 6th Congressional District. He just doesn't fit the electorate.
With Bruce Benson as the new president of CU, this is precisely the time for Republicans, who outnumber Democrats 6-3 on the board, to exert conservative leadership. It'll take that and much more to budge the leftist status quo at CU. Incidentally, you might recall that Schauer cast a reluctant vote to confirm Benson as CU president, perhaps because he knew that voting against him would doom any hope he had for re-election as regent.
In 2005, on the heels of the Ward Churchill scandal, I wrote a letter to each of the regents asking them if they agreed that leftists dominate liberal arts faculties at CU, and whether they would commit to recruit qualified conservative instructors in the interests of philosophical balance. Schauer's answers were evasive and unsatisfactory. He flunked the test.
Geddes later answered those same questions and passed with flying colors, acknowledging (as any fair-minded student will tell you) that the faculty is overwhelmingly liberal, and noting that a fairer representation of viewpoints at CU might also help with fundraising efforts.
When Schauer was making mischief with Bruce Benson's candidacy for CU president, he told the press that Benson (long before he was considered for that job) had "threatened" to work against him if he ran for re-election as regent. Benson no more "threatened" Schauer than I did when I spoke to him last year and told him, privately and candidly, that I thought his record as regent was unacceptable and that I would oppose him if he ran for re-election. Schauer got similar counsel from other Republicans.
Douglas County conservatives will be paying good money to send their children to CU. I think they'd prefer an academic environment that spent more time reinforcing - and less time trashing - the values they've spent their lives imparting to their kids. These voters deserve to be represented by a regent who's committed to a fair shake for conservative ideas at the university. In my view, Jim Geddes is the far better candidate.
Mike Rosen's radio show airs daily from 9 a.m. to noon on 850 KOA. He can be reached by e-mail at mikerosen@850koa.com.
Comments
Posted by kevin3 on May 9, 2008 at 1:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Rosen, get off of your high horse! Only idiots listen to you!
Posted by Oh_Wise_One on May 9, 2008 at 4:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
kevin- the typical spewage of the closed minded progressive who only want change if it starts with Karl and ends with Marx.
Posted by Michael on May 9, 2008 at 5:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
kevin3 is the perfect first post from the left to "counter" Mike Rosen's article. Notice the subtle yet well informed and civil tone that he takes in offering an alternative view to Rosen's?? Notice how his assertions are backed up with some type of factual reference? Notice too how he keeps his emotions in check while still making a strong argument? Keep up the great work Mr. Rosen.....and you too kevin3.
Posted by Gene on May 9, 2008 at 6:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have said it before. . . How could anyone disagree with Mike on this one? But I'm already too late.
Posted by Froward69 on May 9, 2008 at 6:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yet another attempt of forcing rethug Ideology down the throats of young impressionable students. maybe just maybe, they would rather learn the truth with out a political angle. That in itself produces strong caring liberal minds. The gop cannot have that, now can they.
Posted by Spencer on May 9, 2008 at 7:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Appointing Douglas Bruce is one of the best things that could have happened for the Democratic Party.
Posted by Mike_In_Hartsel on May 9, 2008 at 7:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Kevin3, then you must be an idiot? You've proven it by your statement, twice. The second proof is the fact that you make a personal attack rather than address the issues. Why? Because you're an idiot as you claim.
Posted by TeshnaHa on May 9, 2008 at 7:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mike Rosen continues to provide balance to left and progressive opinion with calm, well reasoned and factual information.
Posted by Jack_Bauer on May 9, 2008 at 7:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Froward,
What you just said is exactly the point of this piece - "Yet another attempt of forcing (rethug - YEAH RIGHT, how about LEFT WING) Ideology down the throats of young impressionable students. maybe just maybe, they would rather learn the truth with out a political angle".
Like they already do now, right Froward? Get real dude.
Unfortunately you cannot see how you have it completely backwards because you are blinded by your own liberal bias.
That bias of our higher education system and those who are employed within is obvious and the propaganda that is "taught" is taught as truth.
Professors (and you liberals in general) are afraid of any kind of contradictory or opposing viewpoint on any subject matter (Global Warming, income tax Rates, Business Tax rates, legislative agendas, Health Care, social security, energy policy, etc) all the while you stand on the sidelines preaching your open mindedness and "fairness".
If half of the "open minded" professors in our universities had ever worked real jobs maybe the ideaology would start to swing more towards the center (as it should be) as they would see the errors of their ways by actually working in an environment they are preparing our youth to enter. Instead they sit in their ivory tower preaching how terrible our capitalistic society is and the ills it brings while never having stepped foot into that realm because they are tenured and do not need to worry about layoffs and cutbacks due to a slowing economy. Once again this is hypocrisy at its best and the left is so well versed in it.
Posted by TC on May 9, 2008 at 8:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"leftists dominate liberal arts faculties at CU"
Shocking!
Next thing ya know we'll find out the Marine Corps is full of right wing hawks.
Posted by bropous on May 9, 2008 at 8:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The Leftists are quite happy to have their limited political philosophy rammed down the throats of college students, but let a conservative try to balance the scales and give a little dissenting opinion (or try to correct the distortions of leftwing history professors, such as the revisionists who call Mussolini's fascists or Hitler's Nazis "right wing"), and it's Katie bar the door.
Honestly, leftists cannot tolerate open debate.
Rosen's piece was well-written and reasoned, even though I don't agree with every point. I'm just waiting for the typical leftist attack calling him part of the "religious right".
Posted by TroyJGrice on May 9, 2008 at 8:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I love Douglas Bruce! Anyone that can antagonize, irritate, and otherwise undermine our State's elitist, sychophant-bureaucrats should be celebrated.
So Mr. Rosen is worried about his beloved Republicans being embarrassed? They've already embarrassed themselves with their ideological hypocrisy.
Keep it up, Mr. Bruce!
Posted by Dinty on May 9, 2008 at 8:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Simply put, I occasionaly listen to Mike Rosen and sometimes read his column. I think he's great and I am not an idiot.
Posted by DoubleChubbyChuck on May 9, 2008 at 9:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Spencer never made it out of grade school so being influenced in college does not apply to her.
Posted by Faux_Noise on May 9, 2008 at 9:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why does Rosey favor quotas and affirmative action for conservative professors?
Why can't the "free market" work its wonders?
Can we enforce a quota on liberal investment bankers?
Posted by Lowtaxequalsfreedom on May 9, 2008 at 10:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hi Mr. Rosen,
Your suggestion that DB go the libertarian party is wrong. DB is socially conservative per his website and I do not thing that sits well with socially liberal libertarians.
Mike you obviously have a strong dislike for Tabor and Douglas Bruce, fine. It is your turn to author a ballot initiative to clear up the Constitution. You appear to be one of the smartest men in Colorado and can obviously straiten us out. Please make your next column the Constitutional financial fix we have all been looking for.
Get off the sidelines and into the game!
Posted by jay on May 9, 2008 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
wow...that's a shocker mike...next thing you'll be telling us the sun is going to rise in the morning tomorrow.
thanks for the heads up.
Posted by Spencer on May 9, 2008 at 10:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Doubledumb, what are you doing out of bed? It rubs the lotion on its skin or else it get the hose again.
Posted by DoubleChubbyChuck on May 9, 2008 at 10:34 a.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by MrPeabody on May 9, 2008 at 1 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Diversity" - that word so loved by liberals - is applied in educational circles as to only mean skin color and ethnicity, not diversity of ideas. Seems to me that a University ought to offer a multitude of viewpoints so that kids coming out of there have been exposed to more than one set of views. Across the country, it is not what is happening.
When an education is so one sided and opposing viewpoints are scorned by those tasked with guiding and instructing young minds and those opposing viewpoints are not allowed, it is indeed indoctrination.
Faculty at CU, like many other Universities in this nation are overwhelmingly left of center and don't knowingly allow the hiring of those who don't think like themselves. For those that do accidently get hired, the work environment quickly gets hostile.
It's a fact and has been confirmed. For those of you that can't argue this, go ahead and resume your ad hominem attacks, as that is what you do best.
Posted by jay on May 9, 2008 at 2:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"When an education is so one sided and opposing viewpoints are scorned by those tasked with guiding and instructing young minds and those opposing viewpoints are not allowed, it is indeed indoctrination."
interesting position. what is your basis for believing that this is happening? what "opposing viewpoints are scorned" in your opinion?
Posted by peterpi on May 9, 2008 at 2:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
LowTax, you're wrong!
Mike Rosen likes TABOR. He likes economic conservatism. He likes what used to be Republican Party ideals of limited government. Try reading more than one of his columns.
What he doesn't like are self-annointed messiahs whose ego gets in the way of being an effective legislator. He doesn't like Douglas Bruce's fixation on Douglas Bruce. He doesn't like the fact that Douglas Bruce has generated headlines for Douglas Bruce, but has not served his constituency. I'll guarantee you that Mr. Waller is probably as conservative as Douglas Bruce, and if he's nominated and elected will probably be a more effective legislator.
Posted by Big_D on May 9, 2008 at 2:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Douglas Bruce is a perfect fit for Colorado Springs Republicans. Heck he might even be more cultured than most Colorado Springs Republicans.
Posted by ezekiel777 on May 9, 2008 at 2:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
i just want to thank doug bruce in particular, ... and... well, all conservatives everywhere.... rush limbaugh, newt gingrich, james dobson, pat buchanan, bill o'reilly, and others.... for convincing me to switch parties. i am now a registered Democrat after having been a registered, voting Republican for over 30 years...
thank you for showing me just what conservatives are made of and what they do when they are given power. we deserve better.
Posted by ollie on May 9, 2008 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Who gives a damn!
Posted by malis on May 9, 2008 at 2:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
hmmmm, interesting concept...Mike Rosen as Goldilocks. "The Bruce porridge is too Hot! The Schauer porridge too Cold! Look, I've found this Rosen porridge and it's Juuuust Riiiiight."
As a resident of District 15 and so theoretically a constituent of His Irrelevancy, I have to agree with Rosen's Bruce analysis. I very much hope (and expect) he will be soundly defeated by the actual conservatives of his district, so we'll regain representation in the Colorado House.
As to Schauer, I'm not familiar with either the person or the issues involved so won't try to make a judgment there. I must observe, however, that Rosen's position seems, well, not entirely original...mostly the standard right-wing talking points (the intolerance of the left-wing education establishment because they won't tolerate the right-wing's intolerance!). He should probably leave it to David Horowitz who does that schtick a lot better.
I do imagine he'll be able to milk it a while on his radio show though and can't blame the man for making a living.
Posted by malis on May 9, 2008 at 2:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'll make another observation. Doesn't matter who's saying it, what the topic is, or from what point of view, the statement:
"I've known Jones for years and,
unlike Smith, he's affable and
soft-spoken. The problem is he
lacks philosophical fortitude."
Almost always translates to:
"I've known Jones for years and,
unlike Smith, he's affable and
soft-spoken. The problem is he
doesn't agree with me."
Posted by swimoutpassthebreakers on May 9, 2008 at 6:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Faux_Noise 09:58 certainly made several fake suppositions in his declaration of “Why can't the "free market" work its wonders? “Can we enforce a quota on liberal investment bankers? He assumes there is free market for post secondary education, this would be dead wrong. Colleges both private and public are highly dependent on state and federal government subsidizes. The state of Colorado gives a substantial part of its budget to state colleges and Universities every year. In additional the Federal government provides grants to students and guarantee’s student loans along with many other grants that may be given to a specific department and or research. Plus the federal tax code gives very generous breaks for both income and estate taxes to those how contribute to colleges. Colleges are very much insulated from ravages of the Free Market. So Mike’s pragmatic proposal to work within the current system (board of regents) doesn’t have anything to do with affirmative action or the free market. From listening to Mike and reading his columns I’m guessing he would be more then receptive to bringing free market reforms to post secondary education. Such as; giving the funds that currently goes to the college budget, directly to the student instead. And letting the student decide which school they will spend it on. With colleges having to compete for those funds, making the sale so to speak, I'd speculate that balance in the teaching staff would be one of the results.
And as far as the liberal Investment Bankers goes? I’m thinking George Soros and Robert Rubin currently of Citigroup and former secretary of the Treasury for the Clintons maybe we don’t’ need affirmative action for liberal financiers after all.
Posted by Lowtaxequalsfreedom on May 9, 2008 at 9:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Pastthebreaker,
Vouchers make sense on the surface. They will help competition. However the schools will still be getting there money from taxes whether direct or via voucher. So they will still be motivated to lean left and preach leftist ideologies. No?
Posted by kevin3 on May 10, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow! Look at all of the right-wingers I offended! Cool! That was one of my bonus tasks of the day! It would also be great if I could be the last posting on here.
Posted by Lowtaxequalsfreedom on May 10, 2008 at 12:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow! Look at all of the right-wingers I offended! Cool! [Look at all those you did not offend.]
That was one of my bonus tasks of the day! It would also be great if I could be the last posting on here.[try again]
Posted by swimoutpassthebreakers on May 10, 2008 at 1:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Lowtaxequalsfreedom
Funding for CU is from the tax payers via the state legislature, tuition and donations. During the Ward Churchill saga, CU suffered a large drop in donations. One of the main reasons interim President Hank Brown and now Bruce Benson were brought in was the hope that these moderate to conservative faces, would right the fund raising ship. When the state subsidizes the school directly, as it does now, there is a certain guarantee they will get there funds regardless of some of wacky happenings in Boulder. However when the funding is a individuals hands, and the lefty professors continue spew there hate of mainstream culture and institutions on and on, then students may vote with the dollars and go where that's not the case. With universities and colleges competing with each of other for students they will have to make choices either ideological balance, developing a niche, cater to specifically to conservatives or liberals for that matter and in some cases eliminate whole departments. Maybe every college in Colorado doesn't need a womens studies department etc.
Posted by Tom on May 11, 2008 at 7:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Douglas County conservatives will be paying good money to send their children to CU. I think they'd prefer an academic environment that spent more time reinforcing - and less time trashing - the values they've spent their lives imparting to their kids."
It's called "liberal education" for a reason. Liberal in the sense of free and open and ample. How can there be too much "free thinking" on a college campus? True, liberal professors should not "trash" a person's world view, but that's not the same as forcing them to open their minds to other possibilites. If those "values they've spent their lives imparting to their kids" are so infallible, the kid should be able to defend them. And any true liberal should allow all points of view to be heard.
Posted by Lowtaxequalsfreedom on May 11, 2008 at 11:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
swimoutpassthebreakers,
I understand your point. Competition is good, it provides choice.
I highly doubt there will ever be a school that receives public funding that will then turn around and teach abolition of public funding.
Post your comment (Requires free registration.)
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.