Colorado GOP Statement on the second Democrat presidential debate

GREENWOOD VILLAGE, Colorado - Colorado GOP Chairman Ken Buck released the following statement on the second Democrat presidential debate in Miami:

While Democrats touted their extreme and costly agenda this evening, Coloradans are not being fooled," said Colorado GOP Chairman Ken Buck.

"From their attacks on our booming economy to their universal support for taxpayer financed healthcare for illegal immigrants, these Democrats have proven just how extreme and out of touch they are with working class Americans," Buck continued.

"Colorado is thriving under President Trump and Senator Cory Gardner's leadership, and that is precisely why Coloradans will vote to send them back to Washington next November to fight for our Colorado values.”

Colorado GOP Statement on the first Democrat presidential debate

GREENWOOD VILLAGE, Colorado - Colorado GOP Chairman Ken Buck released the following statement on the first Democrat presidential debate in Miami:

"Tonight's first presidential debate made clear Democrats are not simply lurching to the left, they are hurtling towards socialism," said Colorado GOP Chair Ken Buck.

"From government-run healthcare to open borders with no consequences, the radical vision laid out by Democrats this evening poses a real threat to the economic welfare of every working Colorado taxpayer."

Statement from a Coalition of Free-Market State Think Tanks on the Affordable Clean Energy Rule

The Trump administration's finalized Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule is a major victory for America's middle class, many of whom work in energy intensive industries like manufacturing and mining. It also represents a boon to America's least fortunate for whom energy costs represent a significant part of their budget. All Americans would have been harmed by the Obama administration's legally flawed Clean Power Plan. It would have dramatically increased the cost of electricity and was predicted to reduce global warming by only 0.018 degrees Celsius by 2100, an amount far too small to be measured.

After Congress rejected proposed cap and trade legislation, the Obama administration crafted the Clean Power Plan to force states into regional cap and trade plans. President Trump's plan disallows such plans for compliance and focuses, instead, on improving the efficiencies of individual plants.

The Clean Power Plan claimed to seek a 32% reduction in CO2 emissions from 2005 levels by 2030, at an estimated compliance cost of $9 billion. The US Chamber of Commerce estimated a more realistic $75 billion in compliance costs. The Rule was met with bipartisan opposition by 27 states who won a Supreme Court stay of the Rule in 2016.

The Clean Power Plan was also completely unnecessary. Thanks to the Trump administration's commonsense approach, emissions have fallen by 28% since 2017 and are forecast to be reduced 35% by 2030. At a compliance cost of $0.3 billion for the ACE rule, these gains were at 250 times less cost than the previous administration's alternative.

"This is great news. Hard working Colorado families can thank the Trump administration for making good on his pledge regarding the costly, controversial Clean Power Plan," added Amy Oliver Cooke, Executive Vice President of the Independence Institute. "Further, Colorado elected officials and special interest groups can no longer use the federal government as an excuse for our skyrocketing electric rates. Coloradans can now hold local elected officials solely accountable for our state's job-killing anti-energy policies that will continue to drive up the cost of living."

David T. Stevenson
Policy Director
Caesar Rodney Institute (Delaware)

Isaac Orr
Policy Fellow
Center of the American Experiment (Minnesota)

Gordon Tomb
Senior Fellow
Commonwealth Foundation (Pennsylvania)

Amy Oliver Cooke
Executive Vice President Independence Institute (Colorado)

Kory Swanson
President and CEO
John Locke Foundation (North Carolina)

Jason Hayes
Director of Environmental Policy
Mackinac Center for Public Policy (Michigan)

Brett Healy
The John K. MacIver Institute for Public Policy (Wisconsin)

Jameson Taylor, Ph.D.
Vice President for Policy Mississippi Center for Public Policy

Mike Stenhouse
Rhode Island Center for Freedom & Prosperity

Paul Gessing
Rio Grande Foundation (New Mexico)

Bette Grande
CEO, President
Roughrider Policy Center (North Dakota)

Gary Abernathy: Good journalism is gasping for air

HILLSBORO, Ohio -- Eager to watch President Donald Trump's campaign kickoff rally last week, I first tuned in to Fox News. After about a half hour, I decided I would flip over to MSNBC, then CNN. I was disappointed to discover neither carrying the event.

Let's get this straight. The incumbent president was formally announcing his reelection bid in front of 20,000 people, and neither MSNBC nor CNN deemed it newsworthy enough to interrupt its typical nightly lineup? Viewers weighed in, with about 5 million watching Fox News's coverage of Trump's remarks, marking the channel's third-highest prime-time rating of the year and leaving its two rivals in the dust.

Well, it was just another Trump rally, the critics said. Maybe so. But the same can be said of just about any kickoff rally for candidates who merely repackage the stump speech they've been giving for weeks or months. Yes, Trump filed for reelection right after his inauguration. But a formal kickoff event by a president seeking reelection is news by any standard, whether newsrooms like what he says or not.

I read later that CNN carried a few minutes of the president's rally before breaking away after the crowd broke into the typical "CNN sucks" chant. If this was truly cause and effect, it's another example of a shockingly thin-skinned media landscape. Trump's "fake news" mantra and his frequent attacks on news outlets should be brushed aside like a bothersome mosquito. Instead, too many in the news business react with bulging veins and defensive lectures, which is exactly the response Trump wants.

As a citizen, I wanted Trump to break Washington. As a longtime newspaper editor, I didn't want him to break journalism. But while the former has proved stubbornly resilient, the latter has crumbled like old newsprint. After Trump's victory, it was argued on high that new standards of reporting were needed to cover this president, a view that has served to badly undermine the practice of traditional, effective journalism.

Trump's claims of fake news are wrong. The news is real enough. What's inauthentic is a new style of journalism being employed to report it, including reporters injecting themselves into their stories to call the president a liar, rather than quoting other sources or referring to third-party fact checkers to refute a statement. Even when they're right, the result has been predictable - a widespread perception that the media is out to get the president.

While Big Media has for decades leaned left, it still practiced a basic form of journalism that demanded at least a nod to fairness, balance and, just as important, detachment. The newspapers I edited were of the small-town variety, and I'm proud of that. By and large, small-town editors and reporters still apply traditional standards of journalism, and reader trust remains highest at newspapers such as those.

On Sunday, I watched the president's interview with "Meet the Press" host Chuck Todd, who, with his theatrical array of eye rolls, smirks and head shakes, hardly models himself after his most renowned predecessor, the late Tim Russert, who was the gold standard in tough but fair questioners. Discussing reports of serious problems at detention facilities for illegal immigrants, Todd implored the president: "Do something. Do something." Great advocacy, bad journalism.

It's not just the news media that has allowed its fury at Trump to produce self-inflicted wounds. Late-night comedy has suffered the same fate. An insightful article this month by Joanna Weiss in Politico magazine details how talk-show hosts have traded cleverness and wit for outrage and anger. As Weiss concluded, it's hard to tell the difference these days between late-night comedians and Rachel Maddow or Sean Hannity.

When his media haters are being kind and not comparing Trump to Hitler, they compare him to President Richard M. Nixon. Nixon was brought down in part by historically great reporting of irrefutable facts that even Nixon's loyal base could not ignore or defend. Why? The messenger was trusted. There is irony in the fact that the new journalism standards are having the opposite of their intended effect, serving to bolster Trump with his base rather than destroy him. It's easy for Trump loyalists to shrug off the accusations of a declared enemy who is always on the attack, as opposed to a detached observer with a reputation for reporting favorably when circumstances warrant such coverage and commentary.

Partisan hysterics to the contrary, the republic is in fine shape under Trump. But journalism is in big trouble, mainly because many of its major practitioners have lowered themselves to engaging in a petty, personal war with the president, while installing new rules of reporting that militarize their fabled pens far beyond allegorical swords. Returning to the glory days of unbiased, dispassionate reporting depends on a recognition that the old rules still work best -- not to mention a thicker layer of skin.

Good journalism is gasping for air. Do something.

Abernathy, a contributing columnist for the Post, is a freelance writer and former newspaper editor based in Hillsboro, Ohio.