Monday Open Thread

"Details create the big picture."

–Sanford I. Weill

20 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. La Libertad says:

    Sen Jeff Flake (AZ-R) bills fill foundation of immigration compromise

    Bipartisan group of senators agree on plan for immigration overhaul …..



    • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

      Lawmakers said they were optimistic that the political mood had changed since a similar effort collapsed in 2010. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., one of the negotiators, said he saw "a new appreciation" among Republicans of the need for an overhaul.

      Nothing like a good ass-whipping to change your perspective…

      • La Libertad says:

        Duke, you lazy and vile slackér. Senator Flake has been formally pursuing these specific programs since 2006-2007.

        • AristotleAristotle says:

          Big fucking deal.

          Speaking for myself… First, I won't just take your word that Flake's been pursuing kinder, gentler immigration reform. Doesn't mean that you're lying, but you're not exactly credible.

          Second, Duke is correct. The GOP as a whole has been uniterested in doing anything to help immigrants, and has preferred scapegoating them using tried and true baiting methods. From outrageous and trumped up charges of election fraud to dirty tricks designed to discourage Hispanic citizens from voting, the GOP has screwed the pooch on that front. Now that they've lost the everyone-but-older-white-male vote, they have no choice but to try to treat Hispanics like people.

          Nothing like a good ass-whipping to change your perspective. A fucking men.

        • roccoprahn says:

          Just a quick caution flag here.

          My suggestion is reference Project Vote Smart on the flakester.

          Of particular interest will be HR5281 12/8/10 "No".

          Flake looks more vile with every vote. His "enlightenment" can be traced directly to the election results last November 6th.

          "Lazy and vile slacker"? Oh ye of diapered stench, you're projecting again.

        • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:




          ignorant about many subjects…undoubtedly.

          It's all good, Taddy, my Laddy. You have probably done more to undermine your point of view (as I can make it out) than just about anyone ever on this blog. Keep up the good work. The Senate is responding to the regrowth of a spinal column in the moderate ranks of the Republican party. Think…re-think.

          Bloggers like Republican36, Craig, and a handful of others are respectful of another persons' POV, if it is intelligently stated and heartfelt. That should be the deal we make with each other.

          Just the same…your idiotic bullshit can be entertaining (if not convincing) on rare occasions. Thanks for playing… 

  2. Albert J. Nock says:

    Kim Dotcom  is fighting the silly game called politics.

  3. La Libertad says:

    Direct and to the point regarding labor bosses….

    "(Kniech) is a pawn for the SEIU," said Councilman Charlie Brown. "She is helping them organize workers because that is her background. I don't think that should be in her job description. It isn't in mine, and I worked for a labor union for five years. This is going to send chills to companies who want to bid on contracts at DIA."

    Read more:Denver council sparring over DIA contract, as union tries to organize – The Denver Post
    Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content:

  4. Steve_I_Am says:

    They say Harry Reid wimped out on filibuster reform because he only had 48 votes.  Where did Mark Udall (who is up for re-election in 2014) and Michael Bennet (up in 2016) stand on the issue of real filibuster reform, such as bringing back the talking filibuster, or lowing the number of votes required to cut off a filibuster?


    • MADCO says:

      We're never ging to know for sure.

      But you should ask Udall/Bennet.


      If either is brave enough to answer, that would be illustrative. to be clear-  i hate the fillibuster. But it would have been bold to get rid of it- and it's politicall nuts to answer the question now that it doesn't matter again for 2 years.

    • harrydobyharrydoby says:

      Here's what Sen. Bennet proposed in 2010 — it looks a lot like what finally got passed:

      Here are the specifics of my filibuster reform proposal:

      • Ends anonymous holds so senators will have to answer to their constituents;
      • Requires filibuster supporters to actually show up and vote;
      • Filibusters at the beginning of debate will be eliminated so we can get back to the business of deliberating bills; and,
      • Creates incentives to encourage bipartisanship and allows bills with bipartisan support to move more quickly.


  5. harrydobyharrydoby says:

    If Andrew Romanoff does run for CD6, he might try the same approach as Rep. Ed Markey in Mass (from Politico

    Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), the only candidate to officially announce his bid for the seat in the event that Kerry is confirmed as secretary of state, challenged his future opponents to pledge to keep outside groups from spending money on the race.


    If his opponents (primary or  in the general) don't go along, he would then have the option to either stick with his no-PAC idea (if he thinks he can raise enough without it to win), or honorably back off and accept the funds realistically needed to win a statewide race.

    • Nasty Womanyameniye says:

      The purity pledge does not matter if the electorate think all politicians are corrupt.  We inside the political process know better, however, it is not easy to get the word out.  My sister-in-law still says all politicians are corrupt even acknowledges she thinks I am not. 

      I do not know and I am not sure how many good polls exist to determine the voting effect of a candidate being pure of "bad" monetary support.  Bad not including money from felons and such.  Is it worth the loss of campaign funds?  I do not know.  I do know that money is the blood of politics and to say I will not take a transfusion from such and such group may mean losing an election. I easily refused money from certain groups, but only because I disagreed with them and their motives.


    • It worked between Warren and Brown for the most part. That's one thing I have to give Scott Brown – while there was a metric buttload of money sent to that race, it was mostly channeled through accountable campaign funding.

  6. Nasty Womanyameniye says:

    Can't stand having to log in everytime I want to distribute wonderful and concise comments.

    Now that Hillary has to wear glasses to deal with double vision, I think they look good on her. 

  7. harrydobyharrydoby says:

    Self-styled "Populist" Gov. Bobby Jindahl's latest bright idea:  eliminate state income tax and replace it with a higher sales tax.  Reason?  Income taxes give the wealthy an Owee, but the shoulders of the working class are broad and strong, thus able to bear the additional burden of taxation.

    He figures if you can softsoap the illiterati with "Look Ma, no income tax", that it'll be impossible to reinstate even after the GOP is long dead and buried.

    Here's Paul Krugman's column discussing the sordid details:

    But what we’re seeing now is open, explicit reverse Robin Hoodism: taking from ordinary families and giving to the rich. That is, even as Republicans look for a way to sound more sympathetic and less extreme, their actual policies are taking another sharp right turn.


    But in deep red states like Louisiana or Kansas, Republicans are much freer to act on their beliefs — which means moving strongly to comfort the comfortable while afflicting the afflicted.

    Which brings me back to Mr. Jindal, who declared in his speech that “we are a populist party.” No, you aren’t. You’re a party that holds a large proportion of Americans in contempt. And the public may have figured that out.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.