Chris, please name those 3 Senators who killed CC bill and MMDB bills. We need to bury them in mail(snail and E) and phone calls.
Printable View
Chris, please name those 3 Senators who killed CC bill and MMDB bills. We need to bury them in mail(snail and E) and phone calls.
Thanks for chiming in, Chris. Sounds like some good advice.
Chris, thank you for stopping by. Keep up the great work!
Thank you for the links!
Chris, glad you stopped in here to give us some valuable info. I hope you become part of this forum and didn't just stop in here to push RMGO. Please keep us abreast of an issues and let us know were we can assist you!
THANKs for the info Chris! This helps a LOT.
The three members of the Senate Committee on State, Veteran and Military Affairs WERE:
Senator Rollie Heath, D-Boulder, Chairman
Senator Betty Boyd, D-Lakewood, Vice-Chairman (Term limited, won't be back in 2013)
Senator Bob Bacon, D-Fort Collins (Term limited, won't be back in 2013)
It was completely within the rules, but it WAS frustrating to have 40 Representatives vote YES and then have the bill die at the hands of three Senators.
I voted for term limits way back in 1992, but have since learned the harsh reality of dealing with a legislator who can't run again. With the four-year terms in the State Senate, we lose the accountability of re-election once a member is in his/her second, four-year term. In Colorado, we can serve up to eight consecutive years in each chamber (four terms of two years in the House, two terms of four years in the Senate).
Watch the General Assembly web site for listings of the 2013-14 committee members. That information will populate the web site after the first of the year to correspond with the swearing-in ceremony scheduled for the first day of session, 1/9/2013.
- Chris
Thank you for dropping in Chris. It is refreshing to see honest speech from a Pollytickian[Tooth] regarding such a devisive issue.
Thank you for your support to the rights of the citizens of our great state.
Welcome to COAR15.[Beer][Beer]
One thing to be assured of kids: every dollar you don't spend will not go to the fight................
Watch the General Assembly web site for listings of the 2013-14 committee members. That information will populate the web site after the first of the year to correspond with the swearing-in ceremony scheduled for the first day of session, 1/9/2013.
Are these committee members not picked by the majority party? if so look for pearlmutter to have a seat on it.
Jim,
US Representative Ed Perlmutter is one of the 435 members of the US House of Representatives, which meets in Washington, DC. There are seven US Representatives elected from Colorado: DeGette (D, CD1); Polis (D, CD2); Tipton (R, CD3); Gardner (R-CD4); Lamborn (R, CD5); Coffman (R, CD6); Perlmutter (D, CD7). There are also 100 members elected to the US Senate, two from each of the 50 participating states. Udall (D) and Bennet (D) are the two US Senators from Colorado. Together, the 435 members of the US House and the 100 members of the US Senate are the 535 members of "Congress," which is a term that is appropriate to the two legislative bodies that meet in Washington, DC.
The Colorado legislature meets in Denver, Colorado. I am one of 65 State Representatives who serve in the Colorado House of Representatives. There are also 35 people elected to the State Senate. Those who are elected from their respective districts then meet in Denver from January through May each year. The committee members listed above were the three majority party members (Democrats) who were appointed by Senate President Brandon Shaffer (D, Longmont) to the State Senate Committee on State, Veterans and Military Affairs for the 2011 and 2012 sessions of the 68th General Assembly (aka state legislature).
As a side note, the 100 of us who serve in the state legislature are members of the "Colorado General Assembly." While you did not use the term "Congress," people often refer to me/us as members of the "state congress," but there is no such thing. In the US, "Congress" is a federal term. I equate it to calling John Hickenlooper the "President of Colorado" or Barack Obama the "Governor of the United States." While both terms refer to a chief executive within the Executive Branch of government, one refers to a federal office and the other refers to a state office.
Hope this helps.
- Chris
Sent my emails to Rep Matt Jones (12) and Senator Brandon Shaffer (17). Forgot that Shaffer is term limited and won't be in the 2013 senate; Jones is taking that seat, with Mike Foote now the rep for 12. Will contact Foote after 1/1/12 when his contact info is on the site.
Chris, thanks for the info. I appreciate the direct conversation. As already stated, stop in and participate as a gun owner and enthusiast. Don't forget your waders and a thick skin.
Thanks Chris, this info you have supplied all of us is golden and gives all the right people to contact. This is a very divisive issue as stated before. We have no excuse to not contact those who represent us to let them know where we stand so they might truly represent us and our views, or not keep their job.
Thanks for the info Chris. It definitely helps having someone know is in the system explain it so we can work together
Chris - First of all I want to thank you for taking time to come on the board and personally respond to questions, give advice, and some insight to how the system works. I think you are in the minority as far as representative go. My only comment, and this probably does not pertain to you, is you stated that we should be asking our representatives how they stand on a particular subject when really they should be asking us how we want them to vote. I think that is a big problem in politics, the representative do not know what their constituents want or they do not care.
Again thank you for the time and I hope you frequent the board often.
Well, I won't waste my breath talking to Mary Hodge. I'll have to contact Jenise May and see if she's amenable to logic. Thanks for the info, Chris, and welcome to the forum. [Beer]
Mary Hodge isn't a lost cause. Don't write her off that quickly.
And though using logic is certainly smart, politicians are much more concerned about numbers (as in election numbers). Yes, Hodge is termed, but she wants to run for other things.
Seeing her with an "F" rating from the NRA and a "0%" from RMGO, along with her voting record, I feel it's safe to assume she's not gonna have an epiphany any time soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by RMGOdirector
Hodge lives in a blue collar district (both legislatively, and county commission, which is often the path for someone like her).
She will have at least one other female Dem voting against much of the gun control insanity. Long shot, I know.
Chris, I would surely like to buy you lunch sometime! [Beer]
And Dudley- sorry it took me so long, but I just joined RMGO... I figure who better than you guys to do your damnedest to keep Hick in check, if that's possible.
Newracer,
I disagree with the premise that an elected official should he asking constituents how he/she should vote. Gathering input from constituents is certainly a good thing, but I don't want our elected policy makers to be 'human polling machines,' nor would I lower myself to such an unaccountable standard. The measure of democracy that we incorporate in our Representative Republic is to honor the will of the majority of voters in elections. From that point on, those who are elected to policy making positions (specifically to the legislative branch) must vote based on what he/she believes to be right - and for that which he/she is willing to be accountable. President Clinton exemplified a 'human polling machine' who adjusted his positions based on the will of the majority. For sure, he was very popular, but not an example of what I would consider a principled leader.
Again, gathering input - listening to constituents - is a good thing. However, the elected official must always be accountable for his/her votes and would never be justified in reminding his/her constituents that he/she voted a certain way because the majority of those who expressed an opinion wanted him/her to vote that way. Please consider that we do not benefit by mob rule even if there is a 'human polling machine' standing in the gap.
A former chief of staff for a US Senator once taught me a valuable lesson in effective advocacy. That is, when the elected does something right, go tell your sphere of influence. The reason is that we humans are SO very good at spreading the word about what we don't like, but we'll rarely lift a finger to praise someone when they do something right. We who are elected respond to the same two stimuli as did Pavlov's dog: pleasure and pain. You won't get very far by training a dog with only one of those stimuli, you need to use both appropriately. Likewise, constituents can work with effectively with their elected officials by using the same two tools.
To my point about asking, that's simply a better starting point than weighing in with 5, 10, or more reasons why I should vote a certain way on a given piece of legislation. Professional lobbyists ask first, then respond according to the answer. Constituents almost never do that, which is ineffective. If a legislator confirms that he/she is going to vote the way that you want him/her to vote, then "Thank you" might be more effective than explaining why they should do what they've already committed to do. In sales, people are taught, "When you close the deal, stop talking." Spreading word to your sphere of influence about the elected doing the right thing - public praise among likeminded citizens - is very pleasurable for an elected official... and guess what... he/she might remember that the next time the issue comes up.
If a legislator is uncertain or won't commit to how he/she will vote, then providing information, encouragement, and a firm promise to hold them accountable in the next election is certainly in order. A balance of the two stimuli would be in order and you might actually win over some of those folks.
Those who commit to vote against your desired position are where you would want to allocate the least amount of time, energy, and resources leading up to the vote. You MAY want to devote more time, energy, and resources to those folks in the next election, but frankly some are in such politically safe districts that you would be wise to ignore some and allocate resources where they can actually make a difference. Dudley Brown and RMGO are VERY GOOD at making such determinations. Those decisions are NOT subjective, but based on hard data. Frankly, I don't know anyone in the country who is better at making such determinations than Dudley... which is why some people passionately dislike like him. And yes, it requires money to hold people accountable in elections, which is why he (and all the other gun groups) are constantly asking for money.
Another reason why I encourage gunnies to start by asking is that every once in a while you'll find that the legislator actually knows his/her stuff when it comes to the Second Amendment and guns. Nobody needs to explain to me (and several others in the Colorado General Assembly) how the Second Amendment is our defense against tyranny. Several of us already understand that clearly. Want me to tear down, clean, and reassemble an AR or 45? No problem, I rather enjoy it.
Smile, not everyone is against you. :-)
- Chris
Chris,
You're a breath of fresh air, sir.
Thank you.
Thinks Chris for your input. Like hiring an employee you try and find someone that uses facts, logic and experience to make go decisions and then let them do their job. You do help them along the way with your experience, but ultimately you let them do the job they were hired to do. I just wish more would use this approach when it comes to electing their representatives.
When can i get a free gun cleaning ?Quote:
Originally Posted by RepHolbert
Another big thank you for your inner-circle understanding , and provided guidance . Have linked all my friend and family to this thread . Keep up the good work and the spreading of true meaning of our forefathed given 2nd amendment rights .
Chris,
Thank you for the input and thank you for understanding us.
Well I doubt my emails will do much... Joe Miklosi and Pat Steadman are my employees.
bogman2121, FYI, Miklosi is term-limited and won't be back.Quote:
Originally Posted by bogman2121
- Chris
ALL of our elected officials are our employees. Some of them need to be micro-managed.Quote:
Originally Posted by bogman2121
Really? A state rep participating on the forum? That's so sick! Welcome to the madnes, Chris! I've already learned a few things from your posts.
Hooray! Mine are Peniston and Steadman and Perlmutter! I can talk to a couple of brick walls!
Letters sent. We'll see.
If so they need to be fired.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelhund
Wow, I received my FIRST pro-Second Amendment advocacy email that actually ASKED a question.
How will you vote on Second Amendment legislation?
Will you vote to defend the Second Amendment?
How will you vote on [specific issue]?
EFFECTIVE advocacy starts with a question, not all the reasons why an elected should vote Yes or No. The first step in EFFECTIVE advocacy is to find out who is with you, who is undecided, and who is against you.
Ineffective advocacy starts and ends with all the reasons why you want a Yes or No vote. Ineffective advocacy reinforces the false premise that no one is with you, which isolates you from your friends and empowers your enemies.
Warning a legislator that you'll hold him/her accountable if he/she votes wrong works against you if that person was/is/will/does vote with you. Find out who your friends are, who is undecided, and who is against you. From there, treat the three groups differently: Thank you, education, and caution.
Attachment 18829Quote:
Originally Posted by RepHolbert