U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Janak Joshi

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet

(D) Phil Weiser

60%↑

50%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) Jena Griswold

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) David Seligman

50%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) J. Danielson

(R) Sheri Davis
50%

40%

30%
State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(D) Jeff Bridges

(R) Kevin Grantham

40%

40%

30%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(D) Milat Kiros

90%

10%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(R) H. Scheppelman

(D) Alex Kelloff

70%

30%

10%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Trisha Calvarese

(D) Eileen Laubacher

90%

20%

20%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Jessica Killin

70%

30%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Manny Rutinel

(D) Shannon Bird

45%↓

30%

30%

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
September 28, 2009 03:32 PM UTC

Monday Open Thread

  • 56 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“Endure the present, and watch for better things.”

–Virgil

Tweet
Share

Comments

56 thoughts on “Monday Open Thread”

  1. and failed with the Lt. Gov job.  

    My understanding is the Gov offered the Lt Gov job because it was “my decision” who gets it.  Then O’Brien said she wanted to stay and then it was not the Gov’s decision after all.

    0-2 = primary.    

  2. http://www.politico.com/news/s…

    Interesting story.  I agree Governor Romer had issues with Labor, but the business community was solidly behind Romer.   He was  pro economic development and supported for DIA.  Romer had cross over support from business community and republicans.

    Ritter does not have any cross over support so his issues with the Democratic base are more pronounced.  He has gained nothing by being “moderate”.  

  3. I wonder if I am just another old fogey. But, I do hope the references to the parody of Glenn Beck’s supposed previous criminal acts will cease. It will just taint this blog and all liberal/progressive discussions. I’m sure there is something genuine about Beck that will demonstrate his mendacious and mundane qualities.

    Just ate breakfast with an 89 y/o WWII vet, a combat medic. Antiwar and pro health care reform with public option.

    2. Maybe I’m just a young wipper snapper, but it’s just a joke (a pretty funny one too IMO.)

      Is it in bad taste? Perhaps. But does Beck ever worry about good taste? I don’t think do. If he was an elected official, or some sort of GOP official, then I might agree with you, but given Beck’s outrageous statements since the President has taken office, I honestly couldn’t care less about Glenn Beck or how these comments could potentially be seen as mean.

    3. I haven’t (and probably wouldn’t) post something like this.  But I do see the point of it.  Glen Beck is one member of a the media who makes unfounded allegations and spreads nasty rumors about people.  This is highlighting that tactic, by doing the same to him.  And it is such a ridiculous allegation that it can’t really hurt him.  No one is going to believe it.

  4. My little post about what we should do generated a bit of discussion. And upon reflection two things really jumped out for me.

    1) The primary progressive goal now is to retain government funding at a level a 1990 Republican would find too low.

    2) We Democrats have become timid and are generally unwilling to try for the long pass where you will fail more often than succeed.

    I think at the federal level, if the public option passes, then we will see this shift some. Because that will be a long pass we won.

    At the state level, it’s going to require something major that has frothing at the mouth opposition from the far right – that we pass.

    But if we stay on defense saying “please Mr. Bruce, just don’t make things worse,” we’re not only going to fail, but we’re going to be turned out of office.

    1. Democrats haven’t decided if they have won because of a demographic shift or from the lunacy of the right.  (probably a little off both).

      Until it becomes apparent that demographics are driving the shift, Democrats will tend to be skittish.  

      Unfortunately we all live in bubbles of like minded people and we have trouble recognizing how people can think so fundamentally differently.

      I don’t believe their is a center anymore, we live in a bimodal political environment.  If there is a “middle,” its on the left, because the left accepts more diversity of opinion.

      But what this means is the center increasingly satisfies no one.  The problem will only get worse.  Conservatives watch Fox and liberals watch MSNBC and CNN’s ratings decline.  We sort ourselves into neighborhoods and churches (heck I almost asked to move to a table away from a conservative next to me on saturday, because he was speaking so loudly, his comments were disturbing my meal) so we have less contact with people with a different world view.

      A principled centrist position may still work in Colorado, but most people are there for other reasons.

  5. When you do well in the fundraising department you announce your figures early and do a little bragging.

    My guesses on who will be sending out press releases bragging about cash raised:

    Cory Gardner. Cory will raise more than either McInnis or Penry.  Cory knows what he wants and knows how to get there. Making this race interesting is that Betsey Markey will also be bragging on Thursday. Betsey is one of the most prolific freshman fund raisers in Washington. This will be one expensive race.

    Michael Bennet. Michael will have raised double what Romanoff has raised from the date Romanoff announced on September 16 to the end of the quarter. For the entire quarter he will have raised nine or ten times more than the former Speaker. This guy is a fundraising machine.

    Two who will not be bragging are Andrew Romanoff and Josh Penry. All kinds of excitement but not much money.

          1. but it’s easy enough for anyone to analyze the data to come up with what Ardent suggests. If Bennet’s fundraising from the time Romanoff announced tells a good story, Hughes won’t fail to let people know.

              1. But maybe that’s just me.

                The first couple of weeks contains all the low-hanging fruit.  You can’t extrapolate the rate per week over the first couple of weeks to the rate per month over the life of the campaign.

                But that’s just my opinion.  I’m a numbers guy.  And I have already declined to support one candidate or the other.

      1. But, the lit drop will happen in Denver in about ten days…you will be bombarded by shiny, slick, brochures…and you can count how many per candidate and estimate who has the BMD behind them.  Let us know what you think.

        1. Which is good…any information on DPS which can be challenged is welcome

          BUT. the Governor gives the STate of the State speech; the mayor gives the state of the city speech; Why doesn’t an elected member of the board give a State of the Schools speech??? Instead a hired administrator gives a state of the schools speech.

          Who are the current members of the board?  Has anyone ever heard them speak??? In public???

          Why do they hide?  Where do they hide???  

            1. My motivation is pure selfishness.  I look at my property statement and the mil levy which goes to DPS and the people spending it are invisible….I go bananas.

              I know you have kids and I wish you well.

              1. It’s a disaster.  The status quo is completely offensive, but it seems to be such a source of power I don’t think it’s going to change any time soon.

                1. is an online debate between the DPS candidates – moderated by dwyer & LB. Dwyer – keep asking the candidates, if you get a couple the rest will follow.

                  It may not have much impact this time, but it sets the stage for the next election.

                  1. I would love to do that. BUT, the Post is finally reporting today on the election. It is all about big time power politics and lots of big money involved. The stakes are high. There is out of state organizations operating here…and IMHO, there are bennet people who want to make sure his “legacy” is protected.

                    Again, IMHO, this no more about kids or even Denver than flying to the moon…

                    Debate on a blog?  They do not have to. I can’t wait to see about the money sources…

                    The days of stuffing envelopes and passing out flyers which you copy at Kinkos for two cents a piece are long gone…..

                    1. You could say the same thing about the CD-2 primary back in ’08 – but all three participated in the online debate. The thing is, not matter how much money, publicity is lifeblood for candidates and you provide an important avenue that they are not on.

                    2. It’s like a separate little fifedom where they are insulated from everyone that’s affected by their decisions because none of us are donating thousands to their shitty little campaigns.

                      Sure would love to meet you someday, Dwyer.  I have immense respect for you.

                    3. I cannot handle praise, the responsibility is too great; I will find myself blowing it, or something. Watch me call somebody an idiot, etc.  See, already, I am trying to modify my language. Idiot is not my usual salutation.

                      I have come to respect you, too, and I wish I could live up to your standard. You were a find editor.  You keep your cool and your political philosophy in the face of the prevailing politics, here, which I understand leans left. You also don’t name call.

                      You are right on about the insulation of the DPS elected officials and the current candidates.  I don’t have any answers.  Quite frankly, what would motivate them to debate? It not just the money, there are real power issues which IMHO do not have a thing to do with kids. Good Luck.  

                      And, thank you.

    1. .

      Prez – SecDef – UCC – Theater Commander.

      The more relevant question is how often he has spoken with Secretary Gates on this matter.

      If it’s not once a week, then there might be a problem.  

      Now, for folks who understand what General Petraeus brings to the table, we are wondering why he hasn’t been allowed to retire and find a job he is capable of performing well.  We’d like to see that Bush sycophant brown-noser gone.  But as long as he is the Unified Combatant Commander, that’s the fella the the Prez might check with once a month or so.  

      For Obama to stay in regular contact with Stan would undermine the authority of the two links of the chain that both separate and connect them.

      oh. maybe that’s what you’re suggesting he should do ?  Sometimes you’re too subtle.

      .  

      1. My impression of him is that his knowledge of counterinsurgency enabled the success of the surge in Iraq.

        I’d love for you to elaborate on how and why you feel the way you do about him.

        1. ….but for a number of reasons I’m not willing to post here.

          My main public one is the bribing of the 1920’s and embrace them as Allies. A MilBlogger called them “enemies with benefits.”

          Maybe it’s because the SOBs tried to kill one of my best friends on OIF3 with an IED.

        2. .

          While I admit that this is open to interpretation, I personally do not believe the Surge advanced US interests much, if at all.  My recollection is that it was billed as a way to create breathing space so that reconciliation could take place, and that reconciliation didn’t happen; still hasn’t.  

          Now, after the Surge started, the level of violence against Iraqis appears to have gone down.  We really don’t have any way of knowing for sure, since the methods of collecting such data are so sketchy.  But I don’t believe that the cause of that, if it actually did happen, was the Surge.  I think it had more to do with the fact that “ethnic cleansing” of neighborhoods was complete.  And since the US ruled Iraq during that “ethnic cleansing,” and didn’t stop it, and in fact conducted some of it with our own troops, I don’t consider that a mark of achievement.  

          Under the Law of Land Warfare, an occupation government has lots of responsibilities.  Even though General Petraeus denied that he was governing Iraq, he was the de facto ruler.  He did not protect his subjects.  

          As for his purported expertise in Counterinsurgency, I’ve read about that.  

          However, it didn’t result in any actual counterinsurgency successes that I’m aware of.  

          As an old SF operator, I go back to basics.  In the 1970’s we called that mission Internal Defense and Development.  

          That mission depended 100% on the legitimacy of the national government that we were helping to defend against Unconventional Warfare.  

          Problem is, since the US would not relinquish control and yield to an indigenous government, the “insurgents” were really a legitimate Resistance, and our colonial occupation was illegal.  

          Grunts on the front line are not allowed to balk at orders just because it looks like we are fighting against the core principles that America is founded upon, but the Colonels and especially the Generals have tremendous responsibility in this regard.  

          If General Petraeus had done his job as overall commander in Iraq, he would have ensured that troops under his command were not used for purposes that undermined the whole reason we were there.  But he was a “go along to get along,” “not one to stand for any particular principle” kind of guy.  

          Duty demanded that he push back against the orders he was getting, and he failed.  

          But even if you can abide what he did in Iraq, his performance as CENTCOM Commander is absolutely disgusting.   On his advice, Bush kicked the can down the road, first in Iraq and then in Afghanistan.  In both theaters, we are treading water, waiting for something undefined.  Clausewitzian principles are ignored, and soldiers keep risking it all, but there is no vital national interest at stake.  The reason for this inertia, my guess, is so that GW Bush isn’t blamed for the failures in both wars.  

          To be clear, it is my opinion that we didn’t win anything vital in Iraq, and that we are being pushed out by the locals who don’t want us there and fear us more than they fear whatever it is we are there to protect them from.  

          In my opinion, Afghanistan isn’t shaping up any better.  

          And for those who think that the improvements to Israeli security justify either war, I have to say that I think these wars made Israel less safe.  

          Its fashionable these days for folks to say that Generals can only recommend escalation and more war, its in their DNA.  If true, then we’ve got one sorry bunch of Generals.  Bush famously dismissed Shinseki and Fallon for not mongering wars that would hurt US national security, and promoted immoral sycophants.  I put General Petraeus in that latter category.

          I guess my first impression hasn’t changed much.  He wears a combat action badge that he didn’t earn.  

          When a question arose about Jeremy Boorda wearing a V Device that he arguably did earn, he took immediate action to protect his family name from further shame.

          I cannot fathom General Petraeus being capable of shame.  

          .

          1. I agree 100% with everything you just said regarding American foreign policy. I can’t speak to Patraeus’s character, but you’re absolutely dead on in regards to the policies of the past administration, and the result of the Iraq War.

          2. I need some time to digest it, and I’m swamped today.

            Initially, I’d want to ask you if the only acceptable metric for deciding the surge was a success or not was full reconciliation.  I know that was a stated goal, but I also don’t see that as being possible except in a forced way.  The Shia and Sunni probably aren’t going to be singing kumbaya any time soon.  

            Is it enough that it lowered civilian deaths and seemed to put a hurt on AQI?  

            Also, didn’t Petraeus actually write the counterinsurgency manual used at the war college?

            THanks very much for your excellent post.

            1. Correlation isn’t causation, I think is what Barron is saying. Some post-Surge accounts have also pointed to changes in counter-insurgency tactics that had nothing to do with the Surge, though were coincident with it, as responsible for the results we’ve seen.

    2. Your posts have gotten so short, just a clip or pic and a couple of words, that everybody has to try to divine what it is you’re saying.

      No, I haven’t followed the links or watched the video. I’m at work. A little summary would help those of us who aren’t constantly checking the threads.

      Short of that, you run the risk of being misinterpreted. Or dismissed.

      1. Sorry about that.

        Obama made a major piece of his campaign about how we needed to fight the “necessary” war in Afghanistan.  That we needed to refocus away from Iraq and pour even more resources into the Afghan theater.

        It seems ludicrous to me that he would have only met one time with McChrystal if finishing the job in Afghanistan were truly important to him.

  13. .

    President Obama will decide that the US really will change strategy in Afghanistan, and not by adopting the McChrystal recommendation to escalate.  Instead, he will decide to scale back combat forces and direct a quadrupling of aid and development assistence, administered by civilians and not the military.  He will shift the focus away from the central government of Karzai and shift it onto regional, provincial and local community governance.  

    This will happen by mid-October.

    Dave Petraeus resigns in protest against Prez Obama’s decision to not escalate combat forces in Afghanistan.  This will happen before Halloween.  He starts exploring whether to run for Prez by Jan 2010.  He becomes a hair-on-fire Fox News analyst, praying for failure.  It is revealed that he is the one who leaked the McChrystal Report in an attempt to box Obama into a pro-escalation corner.    

    Obama replaces him with Fox Fallon, who Bush replaced with Petraeus when Fallon spoke out against attacking Iran.  

    I know he’s retired, but if Bush can bring back Schoomaker out of retirement to become CSA, replacing Shinseki who was fired for telling the truth about the Rumsfeld-Franks invasion plan, why not ?  

    .

    And completely unrelated,

    Terrorists attack the Oasis of the Seas, the largest cruise ship ever built, which makes her first cruise in December.  Fortunately, she is so well-built that there are few if any casualties.  

    I think this cannot happen until she becomes famous and the attackers are able to do some planning and preparation, so I predict this occurs by July 2010.  

    This in turn leads to a sea-change in international convention about not arming ship’s crews, which in turn all but ends Somali piracy.  

    .

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

93 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!

Colorado Pols