🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4jpd5l$803@news.tiac.net>, Bob Donahue
<donahue@omphalos.skepsis.com> writes
  . . .
>CO?  From what I've been able to figure out, CO:2 has already cost CO
>millions in $$$ and has bought them almost nothing in return.
>Given that, I fail to understand why there hasn't been a groundswelling
>to negate CO:2 through a reversal amendment. In that case it won't matter
>a t all what the SC decides, and they can recoup their losses
>from the show of support.

I'd say that there has been no "groundswelling" for two reasons:

1)  Perhaps the boycott has cost millions of $$$, but that loss is not
perceptible to most residents.  I certainly haven't noticed any effect,
nor have I heard any reports of distress among Colorado businesses.  I
would be interested to hear any evidence (or even anecdotes) indicating
that anyone has noticed the boycott.

2)  Most residents who care about this are assuming that the Supreme
Court will kill it.


Doubtless if/when the Supreme Court strikes down #2, the CFV
("Coloradans for Family Values) crowd will try it again (actually I've
already read reports of the new effort starting).  I hope some political
lessons were learned by the passage of #2 that will help to defeat any
follow-up attempt.

IMHO, #2 passed because of major political ineptness on the part of the
amendment opposition.  My summary of the campaigns: the CFV people were
allowed to define the issue completely in terms of "No special rights
for gays" and the opposition responded with the slogan "Hate is not a
Family Value."  That slogan is cute, but it did not respond to the CFV
propoganda and it appeals only to people who are already opponents of
the amendment.  
--
                        Jonathan Griffitts
AnyWare Engineering                             Boulder, CO, USA
voice/fax: 303 442-0556                      email jcg@qadas.com