Ernest LuningErnest LuningDecember 11, 20176min1263

Maybe the Colorado Democrats should rename the party's big annual fundraising dinner after Donald Trump, since their enmity toward the Republican president could be the only thing that unites them. Or, if the party is looking to past presidents who didn't own slaves and are unsullied by sex scandals, how about honoring Grover Cleveland and Harry Truman instead of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, as one local pundit suggests?


Clifford D. MayClifford D. MayFebruary 2, 20178min479

In an inaugural address that was more purposeful than poetic, President Trump last Friday vowed to “unite the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorism, which we will eradicate from the face of the Earth.” I hope we can agree, across party and ideological lines, that those are worthwhile objectives. But let’s acknowledge, too, that achieving them will require a much more strenuous and strategic effort than previous administrations have undertaken. The least likely place for uniting nations: the United Nations, an organization that has never managed even to define terrorism. A few U.N. members fight terrorism day after day (e.g. Egypt, Jordan, Israel). Others, however, condone and even sponsor it (e.g. Iran). The U.N. includes representatives of both the civilized and uncivilized worlds, and cannot be said to prefer one over the other.


Adam McCoyAdam McCoyNovember 23, 201611min415

“I have here in my hand a list of names,” Joe McCarthy is famously quoted as saying in the 1950s. The senator from Wisconsin is well storied in the history books as the public face symbolizing fears of communist subversion in the U.S. during the Cold War and leading charges that Soviet espionage was widespread in the highest ranks of the government. McCarthy’s anti-communist crusades and his tactics resulted in him becoming a political pariah — his colleagues in Congress censuring him in 1953. But while conceding McCarthy was unapologetically a demagogue, his tactics deplorable, his accusations frequently off the mark, Harvey Klehr, an expert on the American Communist movement and professor of politics and history at Emory University, argues Russian archives prove the senator was at least partially right about the scope of communist subversion.


Mike McKibbinMike McKibbinNovember 15, 201612min336

No matter how this year's presidential election turned out, there were going to be about 60 million people in America who felt the winner was "in no manner, shape or form someone who represented them or their values." And the keynote speaker at last week's 27th annual SRI Conference on Sustainable, Responsible, Impact Investing at the Hyatt Regency Downtown Denver also said any angst or anger against the government was misplaced.


Clifford D. MayClifford D. MayAugust 11, 20169min330

Groucho Marx famously said he wouldn’t join any club that would have him as a member. Bernie Sanders last week turned that on its head, saying he wouldn’t remain a member of any party that wouldn’t have him as its leader. Sanders decided to become a Democrat only last year and only so he could seek the Democratic presidential nomination. He went on to wage an energetic and occasionally entertaining campaign. In the end, which came at the Democratic National Convention last week, he endorsed Hillary Clinton. The next day he told reporters he again considered himself an independent, not a Democrat.


Lynn BartelsLynn BartelsJune 24, 201610min455

Wayne Williams was a junior at Brigham Young University in 1985 when he was awarded a Truman Scholarship, given to students because of their “leadership potential and interest in government and public service.” Did they get it right? Well, Williams would go on to become chairman of the Colorado Springs Housing Authority and the El Paso County Republican Party, serve two terms as a county commissioner and one term as clerk and recorder. Then in 2014 he was elected Colorado’s secretary of state with more votes than any other SOS candidate in state history.


Clifford D. MayClifford D. MayApril 17, 20169min443

As you watch the circus that is the 2016 presidential campaign, which candidate strikes you as having a coherent vision of national security for the post-Obama era? Who has told you what he (or she) will do about the rise of jihadist regimes and groups in the Middle East and well beyond? Who has made clear how the United States should respond to North Korea’s nuclear weapons, Chinese neo-imperialism and Russian revanchism? In my view, none of them. We have, at most, impressions — less than reliable — regarding the candidates’ inclinations and tendencies. That’s disappointing but not entirely surprising. Voters get what they ask for.