The Polhemus 2012 campaign coverage intensified this past week as the Greenwood Villager posted this article below:
Polhemus challenges Coffman and Miklosi
"One of the most competitive congressional districts in Colorado has gotten even more combative with the surprise entry of independent candidate Kathy Polhemus.
The former Democrat and Cherry Hills Village resident has announced her candidacy in the 6thDistrict, which after years of Republican leadership now boasts a nearly three-way split among the two major parties and independents.
As Democrats and Republicans vie in the new battleground, Polhemus, a retired nonprofit executive, says it is time for an unaffiliated candidate to step forward and represent the last third of the district’s more moderate, unaligned contingency.
“I’m really tired of the hyper-partisan system that we currently have. It’s not working for the country,” she said. “I don’t think either party represents the middle of the spectrum anymore. I decided maybe I should be the one who follows the bread crumbs and sees where they may lead.”
Polhemus enters what was already a contentious race between Republican incumbent Mike Coffman and Democratic state Rep. Joe Miklosi, who have been trading rhetoric for months in the redrawn district. Polhemus thinks both candidates represent politics as usual."
Do you like this post?
g.r. r. commented
2012-07-27 21:39:54 -0600
· Flag
Finally, last post (whew). You speak of increasing jobs. How are you going to do that? You want to keep the illegals here of which the majority will want to simply continue earning what they are and sending it back home. The fact is, that the vast majority of illegals are NOT families here, but families elsewhere. So, how do you propose to create jobs? Spend more money for stimulus? Note that earlier you spoke against the spending.
Drop regulations? Well, I note several things. The first is that even foreign manufacturers have said that other than streamlining our regs, they LIKE THEM. WHy? Because in other nations that are going gangbusters (Canada, Germany, and Australia), they have even tighter regs.
The second is that you being an ex-dem, you are not likely to oppose regulations.
Note that FoxConn wants to come here, but they are opposed to how insane our legal system works. We can and DO sue at a drop of a hat?
So, again, I ask, how will you create jobs?
Are you going to pass laws that tell companies that they MUST bring back their jobs? That will never fly.
But another one would be to roll back the tax cuts that W gave them. However, good luck getting that passed.
How about instead, you let go of the idea of job creation, and focus on starting small companies here that hire local. To be honest, a non-profit is the way to go on that. Yet, I have noticed that few dems do this kind of work. That is, they will do loads of non-profits for helping outside of our nation, or for helping illegals here, but they will not work towards company creations.
I notice that you have your site hosted in Atlanta, yet, we have many fine hosting and clouds here in Colorado.
Likewise, I notice that you do not want to say what non-profit you worked for or anything about you, yet, Dress for Success was a GOOD THING.
I wish that you had actually worked a bit more towards getting American made goods, but at least you helped women.
Do not get me wrong. I am not voting for coffman or Miklosi. But, I notice that you are not much different than the other 2. You are saying little to nothing. You do not want any of us to know who you are, nor do you want to tell us what policies you will push for. Yet, you want to be voted in.
There is little to no difference between the 3 of you.
.
Drop regulations? Well, I note several things. The first is that even foreign manufacturers have said that other than streamlining our regs, they LIKE THEM. WHy? Because in other nations that are going gangbusters (Canada, Germany, and Australia), they have even tighter regs.
The second is that you being an ex-dem, you are not likely to oppose regulations.
Note that FoxConn wants to come here, but they are opposed to how insane our legal system works. We can and DO sue at a drop of a hat?
So, again, I ask, how will you create jobs?
Are you going to pass laws that tell companies that they MUST bring back their jobs? That will never fly.
But another one would be to roll back the tax cuts that W gave them. However, good luck getting that passed.
How about instead, you let go of the idea of job creation, and focus on starting small companies here that hire local. To be honest, a non-profit is the way to go on that. Yet, I have noticed that few dems do this kind of work. That is, they will do loads of non-profits for helping outside of our nation, or for helping illegals here, but they will not work towards company creations.
I notice that you have your site hosted in Atlanta, yet, we have many fine hosting and clouds here in Colorado.
Likewise, I notice that you do not want to say what non-profit you worked for or anything about you, yet, Dress for Success was a GOOD THING.
I wish that you had actually worked a bit more towards getting American made goods, but at least you helped women.
Do not get me wrong. I am not voting for coffman or Miklosi. But, I notice that you are not much different than the other 2. You are saying little to nothing. You do not want any of us to know who you are, nor do you want to tell us what policies you will push for. Yet, you want to be voted in.
There is little to no difference between the 3 of you.
.
g.r. r. commented
2012-07-27 21:11:26 -0600
· Flag
To continue with this, you have not shown innovation or what policies you would back. You speak of cutting deficits, but not really how. For example, you speak of supporting Bowles-Simpson with makes cuts, and a little bit of tax increases. Yet, you ignore some of the B-S suggestions that are political in nature, rather than about being good for America. For example, B-S suggests that we dump all of our efforts into the space launch system, while killing off private space efforts. Yet, private space has the potential to turn space into a TAXABLE item, similar to what the internet did for America and the world. In 2 years, SpaceX will have launched the Falcon heavy which sends 54 tonnes to leo and humans on the F9 for only 20 million a seat. OTH, the SLS, will cost us 10-20 billion to produce the first test flight in 2017, and be approved for general launches around 2022 (all of which are subject to slides). However, the SLS will take 70 tonnes to leo and costs 1-3 billion PER LAUNCH. Note that FH will be around .1B to take 54 tonnes to LEO and will be ready around 2014. In a nutshell, you speak of B-S as the template, but you ignore many of the issues with it (though I would argue that for the most part, it IS a good starting point).
Likewise, you follow through in the rest of your posts wanting to spend more money. For example, education. You want a world class system. Yet, unless we change HOW we teach our kids, we will continue to lose ground. Now, I have seen a number of foreign kids come here and have noticed that in general, we are actually ahead of them in k-8. After that, is where we lose ground. That could be due to a number of reasons, but in the end, it will be lack of money that is the most telling. So, you do not address how to deal with this.
Then you speak that we must provide more border protection to stop illegals. Ok. 40% of all illegals came here LEGALLY and simply overstayed their visa’s (most are tourists visas). Why? Because of jobs. Not because they were escape a war zone. Another 20% came over the Canadian great lakes, and ocean borders. And no doubt, if we shut down the Mexican border, we will see the shear number jump up on that side. So protecting any of these borders are not just crazy expensive, but also worthless. The only way to stop illegals is to deny them access to jobs.
As to the drug war, I notice that you are opposed to it. Great. Most are. Yet, are you saying that you will back decriminalization which would actually make things worse, or are you speaking of legalization?
Decriminalization would remove legal penalties for the users, who would then increase their demand. At that point, the gangs, mostly latino gangs would step forward and bring us loads more drugs over the borders, over the shores, even through Canada and flights. Why? Because it would triple the trillion + a year that drugs cost America NOW.
So, what happens if you legalize them? Well, first off, little to no chance of passing it. But, lets assume that you really want to make it happen. If you legalize it, like we did alcohol, that would simply encourage gangs to move into the operations. We would see multiple trillions flowing everywhere. All of this would actually increase our costs, not lower them.
There is ONE decent solution, but I suspect that there are more. Mine would be to legalize ALL drugs, but require that 100% of it be manufactured here. In addition, there would be no imports or exports of the drugs. Likewise, no advertisement, no use outside of ones home, etc. If somebody is caught using it outside, then they are entered into drug rehab. If they are caught using drugs produced outside of the legal system, then they get jail time. If they are caught selling drugs other than the legal ones, then they get major jail time. If they are caught selling/giving it to ANY underage person, then they get decades of jail time.
Note that with this approach, we deny trillions to the outside drug lords, the terrorists (aq and taliban), and to our local gangs. They will make a run at our children (which is where most currently target today). Yet, with this approach, we can target them at this level quite effectively.
Likewise, you follow through in the rest of your posts wanting to spend more money. For example, education. You want a world class system. Yet, unless we change HOW we teach our kids, we will continue to lose ground. Now, I have seen a number of foreign kids come here and have noticed that in general, we are actually ahead of them in k-8. After that, is where we lose ground. That could be due to a number of reasons, but in the end, it will be lack of money that is the most telling. So, you do not address how to deal with this.
Then you speak that we must provide more border protection to stop illegals. Ok. 40% of all illegals came here LEGALLY and simply overstayed their visa’s (most are tourists visas). Why? Because of jobs. Not because they were escape a war zone. Another 20% came over the Canadian great lakes, and ocean borders. And no doubt, if we shut down the Mexican border, we will see the shear number jump up on that side. So protecting any of these borders are not just crazy expensive, but also worthless. The only way to stop illegals is to deny them access to jobs.
As to the drug war, I notice that you are opposed to it. Great. Most are. Yet, are you saying that you will back decriminalization which would actually make things worse, or are you speaking of legalization?
Decriminalization would remove legal penalties for the users, who would then increase their demand. At that point, the gangs, mostly latino gangs would step forward and bring us loads more drugs over the borders, over the shores, even through Canada and flights. Why? Because it would triple the trillion + a year that drugs cost America NOW.
So, what happens if you legalize them? Well, first off, little to no chance of passing it. But, lets assume that you really want to make it happen. If you legalize it, like we did alcohol, that would simply encourage gangs to move into the operations. We would see multiple trillions flowing everywhere. All of this would actually increase our costs, not lower them.
There is ONE decent solution, but I suspect that there are more. Mine would be to legalize ALL drugs, but require that 100% of it be manufactured here. In addition, there would be no imports or exports of the drugs. Likewise, no advertisement, no use outside of ones home, etc. If somebody is caught using it outside, then they are entered into drug rehab. If they are caught using drugs produced outside of the legal system, then they get jail time. If they are caught selling drugs other than the legal ones, then they get major jail time. If they are caught selling/giving it to ANY underage person, then they get decades of jail time.
Note that with this approach, we deny trillions to the outside drug lords, the terrorists (aq and taliban), and to our local gangs. They will make a run at our children (which is where most currently target today). Yet, with this approach, we can target them at this level quite effectively.
g.r. r. commented
2012-07-27 20:21:50 -0600
· Flag
Sad.
You speak of innovative ideas and being against the hyper-partisanship that we now suffer. Yet, you have not presented a single new idea. Worse, your ads say that you want to give amnesty to all illegals. There is ZERO chance of that flying. Basically, to accomplish things, we need COMPROMISE, that is in the NATION’S best interest. Not in what you hope will be future voters for you.
If you really wanted to solve the illegal issue and return jobs to America, you would back HR-2885, with a number of modifications:
1) require that all companies only deal with other companies that have e-verified, and that all 1099s or even a day hire, have undergone e-verification. That means for day hires, you could pick them up from a private service, or perhaps the gov. will do it for ‘free’. By requiring e-verification of all businesses, it denies the real reason for why illegals come here. BTW, if you doubt that, then you do not know a single illegal. Few of them come here to escape ‘war’. They come here to earn money and most of them will take it back to their nation. IOW, this is simply a more expensive form of outsourcing.
2) You would increase the penalties on businesses that hire illegals if they do not e-verify them. If they e-verify all employees, 1099s, and sub-contractors, then they should be exempt if they followed all the rules. If they did not, then the penalty should be 10 * the pay to the illegals. Likewise, if they were found to be cheating at the laws, they should be referred to labor, and pay 20 * the pay of the illegals or minimum wage (which ever is higher).
3) The vast majority of Americans are opposed to general amnesty. It will never fly with republican leaders OR their followers. So, that is a dead deal.
However, there are 2 groups that should be dealt with differently:
a) Those that served. If they did served and was honorably discharged or are still in the military, they should be able to stay and earn their citizenship. Likewise, anybody in their IMMEDIATE family (wife and kids) should have the ability to stay here.
b) Those that were brought here; raised here; have been in our schools for over 5 years; either still in school or have GED or better; have no real legal issues in the past; and not associated with gangs of any type. For these ppl, they should be allowed to stay here and earn their citizenship. They should be required to finish HS/GED if they have not. But for all, they need to do service to America. That could be military, but it could also be vista.
You speak of innovative ideas and being against the hyper-partisanship that we now suffer. Yet, you have not presented a single new idea. Worse, your ads say that you want to give amnesty to all illegals. There is ZERO chance of that flying. Basically, to accomplish things, we need COMPROMISE, that is in the NATION’S best interest. Not in what you hope will be future voters for you.
If you really wanted to solve the illegal issue and return jobs to America, you would back HR-2885, with a number of modifications:
1) require that all companies only deal with other companies that have e-verified, and that all 1099s or even a day hire, have undergone e-verification. That means for day hires, you could pick them up from a private service, or perhaps the gov. will do it for ‘free’. By requiring e-verification of all businesses, it denies the real reason for why illegals come here. BTW, if you doubt that, then you do not know a single illegal. Few of them come here to escape ‘war’. They come here to earn money and most of them will take it back to their nation. IOW, this is simply a more expensive form of outsourcing.
2) You would increase the penalties on businesses that hire illegals if they do not e-verify them. If they e-verify all employees, 1099s, and sub-contractors, then they should be exempt if they followed all the rules. If they did not, then the penalty should be 10 * the pay to the illegals. Likewise, if they were found to be cheating at the laws, they should be referred to labor, and pay 20 * the pay of the illegals or minimum wage (which ever is higher).
3) The vast majority of Americans are opposed to general amnesty. It will never fly with republican leaders OR their followers. So, that is a dead deal.
However, there are 2 groups that should be dealt with differently:
a) Those that served. If they did served and was honorably discharged or are still in the military, they should be able to stay and earn their citizenship. Likewise, anybody in their IMMEDIATE family (wife and kids) should have the ability to stay here.
b) Those that were brought here; raised here; have been in our schools for over 5 years; either still in school or have GED or better; have no real legal issues in the past; and not associated with gangs of any type. For these ppl, they should be allowed to stay here and earn their citizenship. They should be required to finish HS/GED if they have not. But for all, they need to do service to America. That could be military, but it could also be vista.
