U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet

(D) Phil Weiser

60%↑

50%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Jena Griswold

(D) David Seligman

40%

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*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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) Somebody

80%

20%

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
November 13, 2009 04:41 PM UTC

Open Line Friday!

  • 109 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“You know, this is just…I’m not going to sit there and refute the brilliance of Warren Buffett as an investor and strategist, but I have to question the common sense the guy has.  We are in the midst of an assault on capitalism!”

–Rush Limbaugh

Tweet
Share

Comments

109 thoughts on “Open Line Friday!”

    1. Which may be similar to everyone else’s  most of which which I’ve never read. But it seems a little much.

      You need a Google Account to access Google Voice. Google asks for some personal information when you create a Google Account, including your alternate contact information and a password, which is used to protect your account from unauthorized access. A Google Account allows you to access many of our services that require registration. You will also be asked to choose a Google Voice phone number that will be assigned for your use, and any forwarding telephone numbers that may be used in conjunction with the service.

      Google Voice stores, processes and maintains your call history, voicemail greeting(s), voicemail messages, Short Message Service (SMS) messages, recorded conversations, and other data related to your account in order to provide the service to you.

      When you use Google Voice, Google’s servers automatically record certain information about your use of Google Voice. Similar to other web services, Google Voice records information such as account activity (including storage usage, number of log-ins), data displayed or clicked on (including UI elements, links); and other log information (including browser type, IP-address, date and time of access, cookie ID, and referrer URL). Google’s servers also automatically collect telephony log information (including calling-party number, forwarding numbers, time and date of calls, duration of calls, SMS routing information, and types of calls).

        1. voicemail?

          SMS (IM)?

          I guess I always assumed that all telecoms keep track of the call volume- or network traffic details.  But when I delete voicemail, I expect it is deleted. Likewise text messages.  this sounds like Google universe may keep that.

          1. Google Voice has to store your SMS data so you can retrieve it on any phone using the service … I suppose that’s the same as your e-mail provider saving your messages so they can be retrieved using different clients?

            But all cell companies save the SMS routing info for a while, if not the messages themselves — during the Angie Zapata trial, a key piece of evidence was the number of times the killer and victim texted each other, though the actual messages weren’t available because the killer destroyed her phone and deleted them off his.

              1. You’d still be on Google Earth, enclosed space or not.  And how long to get your former, now burned house off?

                I don’t believe that’s a real option, Google would NEVER suggest anything so shabby.

    2. I’ve been using Google Voice for my business and it’s been one of the coolest Google gadgets I’ve ever used. If Google offers a full phone service, I won’t hesitate to dump my current service provider.

  3. …To The Point was discussing Fort Hood, when the founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation made an excellent point about the military.

    Paraphrasing, we kick out Gay & Lesbian military members because they are a threat to “good order and discipline,” but we’ll keep a religious extremist who turned out to be a mass murder because he was in a shortage skill position.

    As the investigation continues, I still don’t know if I was right or wrong in saying mental health issues caused this massacre.

    But I am starting to get uncomfortable with the fact many people in the Chain of Command knew this guy was conflicted about his role in the military, and he had spoken out so forcefully about the incompatibility of Muslim SMs serving in the MIddle East…even while he did a great job as a soldier and a clinician.

    Did they keep him in uniform AND promote him because they were desperate for Shrinks? DId the transfer from laid-back Walter Reed to Fundamentalist Baptist Fort Hood push him over the edge?

    I know MAJ Hasan has lawyered-up, but dammit we need some answers out of this…

    1. about all the red flags, the more incredible it seems that the army was letting it all slide, including shabby work.  Kind of makes everything we have to go through to get through airport security these days look like a dog and pony show.  We’re taking off shoes and buying special tiny containers to bring shampoo in a carry on while this guy goes on his merry way in spite of lousy performance and deeply alarming speech and connections?

      You are so on the money about the contrast between how this has been handled as opposed to kicking out well qualified, high performing gays, some of them interpreters of the Muslim faith.  There are and have been many Muslims serving with honor and distinction but it appears this guy was a big problem from the word go. The military certainly appears to have been negligent to an astounding degree.

      1. I thought checking everyone’s shoes was the key to successful anti-terrorism.  And those gaysbians are all sleeper agents.  We must conquer with God as our leader, or else!

        I should have made that all caps, sorry.

    2. However, there are some things that I am deeply uncomfortable about the FBI/Army’s conduct going back as far as 2007.

      Unfortunately, I believe the army has shut the FBI out on issues of motive (the FBI is helping on forensics around the event) so there is a risk of a cover up, it wouldn’t be the first time (Fort Carson murder epidemic anyone?).  

      Was this Terrorism? Not the important issue unless he was part of a group.  Any victim of a violent crime will tell you there is terror involved, but if he was acting as part of a group that means further threat and that’s why that was important.  It appears he acted alone and received no material support, but again I’ll wait for evidence.

      Did the Army mishandle Hasan, did the FBI drop the ball?  Those are important issues.

      1. a) the investigation determines that while he attempted contact with groups but never had significant contact, and

        b) he was devoutly Muslim and

        c)  he was increasingly convinced that the US occupation and invasion of  (and war against)  Iraq and Afghanistan was justification for Muslim resistance and

        d) his commander new but did nothing and

        e) that he alone decided to act, and chose his action.

        Would we then say that the war isn’t against Iraqi insurgents or Al Queda or Afghani rebels, or any state or group other than radical Islam?

        What does that mean? How do we wage war against an idea?  What is the appropriate police action? Military?

        1. has been successful police action.  We can drive el Qaeda out of any territory, for instance, and it can just go elsewhere. It’s like water. Fighting over seas didn’t prevent this act of mass murder but it certainly seems as though there were plenty of missed opportunities to prevent it.    

          1. Much still to learn (and I hope the public is allowed in on that knowledge) about the Ft Hood incident.  And MADCO’s question – how do we wage war against an idea – is a question to apply more broadly than to just organized terrorist groups.  Sometimes very sick people act on a murderous idea, and sometimes extremist groups in this country (groups not currently considered terrorist organizations) “brainwash” members into holding extreme views, and acting in a lethal way on those views (killing abortion doctors comes to mind).

  4. It appears that Josh Penry wants everyone else in Colorado politics to come up with a budget plan. Except for Josh, of course.  People have been asking Penry for his own budget plan for a long time. Now we know why he has failed to provide one.  Apparently, he is waiting for other people to do his work for him.  As Penry’s bff reports:

    “Penry has yet to endorse McInnis, for whom he worked as press secretary in Washington, D.C. He didn’t press McInnis for a job, he said, and made no other arrangements with him, but is hoping to press him to offer more definitive budget plans to voters, Penry said.”

  5. 7. Colorado (D): Two key unanswered questions will determine how competitive this race is next year. First, can former state House speaker Andrew Romanoff raise enough money — with the national party working to shut down all possible avenues of cash for him — to ensure that Democratic primary voters know they have an alternative to appointed Sen. Michael Bennet? Second, how much personal money is former state senator Tom Wiems (R) willing to put into his primary campaign against former lieutenant governor Jane Norton (R)? (He has said he will put in $500,000. Double that and it could be a problem for Norton.) A Bennet-Norton matchup concerns Democratic strategists. And, it should. (Previous ranking: 6)

  6. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…

    Now that’s surprising.

    NASA is reporting the “major” discovery of a large field of ice on the moon, following its LCROSS mission to “bomb” the moon earlier this year.

    …

    NASA says that a “significant amount” of water was found: “We’re not just talking about water on the moon, we’re talking about significant amounts of water on the moon,” they said.

    Possible sources of the water include comets, and solar wind.

    NASA spokespersons at the press conference acknowledged that they were “excited” by the discovery.

    I love all the “quote” “marks,” clearly placed by a writer who doesn’t see what the “fuss” is about…

        1. It’s “stunning” news that the moon “is all wet,” raising “serious questions” about our “green cheese” preconceptions. “Who’d’a thunk it?” You learn “something new” every day.The drink menu is “what you’d expect,” but “try the house red.”

  7. Holy cow – my buddy just sent this to me.  David Peaston won Showtime at the Apollo about 7 times in a row.  I think he was a school teacher, and of course, that’s Dianne Reeves. THE Dianne Reeves.

    Omar Hakim and Hiram Bullock?  Are you kidding me?

    1. Oh yeah. Now we’re talking. I’d kill for pipes like hers. He ain’t half bad, either. 🙂

      Keep that shit coming. I’m having a rough Friday. I don’t feel like talking politics today. I just wanna jam.

      1. If David can give us bubble gum, I can supply popcorn.

        The tightest band in the world.

        If they look serious, it’s because James will fine any one of them $100 if they make a mistake.

        Unh! Good God!

        1. I don’t know how those guys used to record.  The rhythm guitar would have had to keep vamping on the same filthy groove for like an hour – pre-cut-and-paste.

          Nice one, Ralphie.

        2. Sweet. That’s what I’m talking about.

          I think we should have a Required Friday Jams Thread on this blog. Not sure what it has to do with Colorado Pols, other than it proves we here in Colorado have exquisite, bipartisan taste.  

            2. I may just start up a Friday Jams diary series just to indulge my love of good tunes.

              And, even more importantly, it will make JO so happy–she’s a big believer that in order to be taken seriously on a blog, you MUST post diaries. Quality versus quantity is meaningless to her. More is better, even if 99.9% of the diaries written are pure crap.

              And this song takes me back to Hawaii, 2005, Big Island. I was living there for 5 weeks and on my very last day there (2 hours before my flight to come home to CO, no less), I got pulled over by a cop while driving 85 mph in a 45 on the Gold Coast Highway north to Kapaau while jamming out to Beautiful Day. He gave me a parting gift I shall not soon forget.

              Humorless fuck.  

              2. Oh my … an unpleasant souvenir from paradise.

                I support your plan to provide a Friday Jams diary. (If you think of it, put a reminder in the Friday open thread otherwise I’ll never remember to look for the diary.)

                1. And I’d love it if you would contribute to the Jams diary. That would just be great.

                  And yeah, my “souvenir” sucked big time, although I was halfway tempted to contest it so I could go back to Hawaii for the court date. 🙂

          2. I like DavidThi08’s comments as much as anyone, but no one who’s seen any of his vast collection of Russian YouTube music videos will accuse him of having good taste in music… 😉

    3. For those who need a picture:

      THE PEOPLE ARE WATCHING THE GOVERNMENT RAKE OFF

      The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775 – we have had 234 years to get it right; it is broke.

      Social Security was established in 1935 – we have had 74 years to get it right; it is broke.

      Fannie Mae was established in 1938 – we have had 71 years to get it right; it is broke.

      The “War on Poverty” started in 1964 – we have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to “the poor”; it hasn’t worked, we blame a 50% high school dropout rate on it and our entire country is broke.

      Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965 – we had 44 years to get it right; they are broke.

      Freddie Mac was established in 1970 – we have had 39 years to get it right; it is broke.

      Trillions of dollars were spent in the massive political payoffs called TARP, the “Stimulus”, the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009… none show any signs of working, although ACORN appears to have found a new source: The Taxpayer.

      And finally, to set a new record:

      “Cash for Clunkers” was established in 2009 and went broke in 2009! It took cars (that were the best some people could afford) and replaced them with high-priced and less-affordable cars, mostly manufactured by Japanese corporations. A good percentage of the profits went out of the country. And the American taxpayers take the hit for Congress’ generosity in burning three billion more of our dollars on failed experiments.  Few of the auto dealers have been paid.

      So with a perfect 100% failure rate and a record that proves that “services” we shove down our throats are failing faster and faster, some want Americans to believe the government can be trusted with a new government-run health care system?

      So, do you really want the government to allocate capital for 20% of our economy – healthcare?

      2. We’ve had 233 years to get it right.

        Yet it continually needs subsidies every year just to stay afloat.

        Funny how government programs seem to require government money. What’s up with that?

          2. according to my book of stuff that might be true.

            Why I heard the Forest Service was deliberately starting fires in forests! Is this what they’re paid for? To destroy the Earth?

            How many of your tax dollars are going towards setting the Earth on fire? All of them? Maybe not, but shouldn’t we at least be asking the questions?

            You know who else wanted to set the Earth on fire? The Devil.

            Now you’re saying, in your weird little Muppet voice, “Oh sxp, you just compared the Forest Service to Satan!” No! I didn’t!

            But shouldn’t someone be making that comparison? It is still a free country, isn’t it? Until Barack Obama sets us all on fire, that is.

            1. can prove it’s not one of Satan’s minions, it’s a very real — and very frightening — possibility.

              It’s no coincidence Smokey the Bear reeks of brimstone, is it?

                1. If Smokey and Yogi are doing more than hibernating in that cave all winter long, I don’t want my federal tax dollars paying for it. It’s a crime against nature.

              2. reserved for the Forest Service’s explanation that they are not the devil or a devilish subcontractor.

                And no, I won’t give them my email address. If they want it they can ask the devil they love worshiping so much.

                Still waiting, Forest Service!

                [wait wait]

                Still waiting!

                [wait]

      3. ….this rant came from (among other places) the MomsLikeMe.com chat forum? (I’m not ever sure what to do with that.)

        On occasion, you used to have some original (yet insane) rants. Now you’re reduced to cutting and pasting from the web.

        Burning Crusade in World of Warcraft must be taking up a lot of time on the old CPU…

      4. but you are a moron.

        I will ignore some of your more arguably stupid points and go for the most obviously stupid points

        Fannie and Freddie were privatized in 1991 under FIRREA. They were sold to shareholders and traded on the NYSE. Neither received government funds nor government guarantees.  

        The Government ran Fannie and Freddie just fine, and they navigated through the regional housing bubbles of the 70’s and 80’s just fine, and even in the early years of private ownership.

        It wasn’t until a combination of shareholders pushing for profits and a generally deregulate housing and securitization market brought about by Laisse Faire purists destroyed a couple of the best institutions ever built in just about a decade.

        Your lips are moving but I can’t hear what your saying.

      1. …playing to the base that’ll come out in Election Day.

        “I am the real Conservative!”

        “No, I am! I want to close the border with concertina wire and landmines!”

        “No I AM more Conservative – I’ll put Marine Infantry Units on the border and order them to shoot!”

        I can’t wait for this stupidity to start…

          1. wouldn’t it be better to prophesize in favor of preferable outcomes?

            I was among those who said, in the immediate aftermath of Barack Obama’s speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention, that he was destined for the presidency, but that 2008 was too soon. Just wasn’t going to happen. And yet, it did.

            Lots of things that “weren’t going to happen,” have. When I was stationed in West Germany in 1982-84, all of the West Germans I knew said of the prospect of the Berlin Wall coming down, “Es wird nicht geschehen.”

            But just a few years later, es ist geschehen, the wall did come down. Obama won in 2008. 227 years before that, the American colonists improbably gained independence from Great Britain, and a few years later the French improbably replaced their centuries old monarchy with a republic. The tiny flea-speck Greek city-states improbably staved off the Persian giant to their east, and Alexander III of Macedon then led those flea-specks to conquer that same Persian Empire and beyond. These things, and countless others like them, happened not because people were busy declaring what wasn’t going to happen, but because people got busy making desired outcomes happen, despite the odds.

            A survey of world (and natural) history suggests that history is comprised, most saliently, of unlikely rather than likely events, because it is the accumulation of the unlikely ones that have given us this very unlikely world of ours.

            I don’t know what’s going to happen. But I know what, and whom, I support, and what I’ll fight for, whether with or against the odds. Because I prefer the unlikely world we are capable of creating to the likely ones to which we will otherwise default.

            1. History is filled with more “unlikely events” than “likely events.”

              No, wait- no it’s not.

              Does the unlikely sometimes occur? Sure.

              Does it always? No

              Should we have high quality candidates in CD6 like John Flerlage? Yes.

              Is he going to win in 2010? not likely- but HE SHOULD RUN HARD AND HE HAS MY SUPPORT

              1. I said history is more saliently comprised of unlikely than likely events, not that the former numerically outweigh the latter.

                Do you know why all living species on Earth are as they are? Because of long series of unlikely events (genetic mutations advantageous to their reproductive success). Much more commonly, off-spring don’t exhibit mutations. And when they do, those mutations are overwhelmingly disadvantageous to reproductive success. And yet it is the very unlikely occurances of mutations which defy those odds which, in the end, define life on Earth. That is what I meant by the unlikely being more historically salient than the likely.

                One has basically three choices regarding how to address any candidacy: (1) Speaking and/or acting in ways which augment the candidate’s chances of winning, (2) speaking and/or acting in ways which diminish his chances of winning, or (3)speaking or acting in ways which have no impact on his chances of winning.

                You stated elsewhere that you don’t want to invest your limited time in a campaign that you consider to be a longshot, even though it is a candidate you support. That would suggest choosing number (3) above: Doing and saying nothing. Instead, what time you do invest, is invested in number (2), very marginally adversely affecting his chances.

                Your arguments are all based on the fallacy that if you can argue that something is true, then you have successfully argued that it was productive to state it. I responded elsewhere that that is simply not necessarily the case. I might be able to argue that someone is ugly, but that doesn’t mean that there is any benefit to my stating it. Truth is not the same as utility.

                Now, if you were to make the case that your observations add to utility in other ways, even if they marginally diminish John’s chances of winning (by marginally affecting the perceptions of any audience to those statements), you would have a leg to stand on. But, frankly, I don’t see it. I don’t see any positive purpose being served by your statements. So why bother to state them?

                Of course, it’s your right to do so. But there’s a difference between it being your right and it being right. I mean, I have every right to call some stranger ugly, but, let’s face it, it would be an obnoxious thing to do.

                1. “…based on the fallacy that if you can argue that something is true, then you have successfully argued that it was productive to state it.”

                  No.

                  Re-read what I wrote- today and every other time this kind of issue came up. I said it explicitly today- and have implied it before.  

                  Utility comes in many flavors.  You think it is useful for me to shut up and not express skepticism about the probability of a campaign’s victory or success.  (I’d argue the two are usually synonymous, but not always – success may be measured by other standards.)  I disagree. But not because I don’t believe there is a great candidate- nor because I’m indifferent to the possiblity that my skepticism would have marginal negative impact.  I disagree because it is zero sum – that 168 hours thing has a way of limiting a lot of us – and there are more useful ways to spend our time.

                  Higher utility vs. lower utility.

                  So it’s not that I think just because you may think it’s true that that passerby is ugly it would be useful to say it. But if that passerby appeared ugly because he had something stuck in his teeth- it might be useful to point it  out. (Assuming you could do it fast enough and politely enough)

                  But that’s not even what I’m suggesting. To extend the tortured metaphor- if there were an ugly stranger (for any reason) and I could let him know about it or save the kids who are about to run in front of the oncoming car, my time is better spent saving the kids.

                  PS

                  I’m not directly involved with the CD6 campaign – which you may  know- but I would also argue that my skepticism warrants some campaign introspection.   Why has the campaign not motivated my involvement – despite having a great candidate? Nor that of many of my neighbors?   Why have my non-insider D neighbors never heard of the candidate?  My skepticism is mine- and I’ll defend it all day long, at least until the campaign gives me a better reason to shut up.  And I’ll express it under the following circumstance- I think it could/may benefit the campaign or if I think there are campaigning activities with higher utility. So far, both are true.

                  1. by spending some of them posting your counterproductive observations. In fact, how much time have you now wasted explaining to us all how you’re sagely motivated by a desire not to waste time on this subject?

                    Your right to say counterproductive things and defend their utility with a sieve for a bucket is not in question. And my purpose was not to engage you. (Lord no!) I merely point out that every time John’s name is mentioned, you feel compelled to share with us your inexhaustable, if tediously redundant, “wisdom” regarding the defects of his campaign. And you do so very publicly. Saying nothing original, insightful, or in any way useful. Ad nauseum. To save time, of course.

                    As for the service you are providing by doing so: When I tell someone that they have a bit of food stuck in their teeth, I try to do so discretely, since nothing is gained and much is lost by shouting it out for all to hear. I don’t publish it on a blog.

                    Even worse is to wait for a hundred other people to say it, and then chime in, as loudly as possible, “OH YEAH, LOOK AT THAT GOB OF MAYO!”

                    And worse still is when the mayo is on the lens you’re looking through, rather than on the teeth of the person you’re so generously deigning to help out.

                    You are offering no information that has any useful value, to anyone. But, by all means, continue to drone. And I’ll continue to neutralize your static with the restatement of these obvious truths. After all, higher signal-to-noise ratios are always preferable, whether they come in small packets or large.

                    1. Go check the definitions of “likely” and “unlikely.”

                      I think you’ll find that if something happens more often, it’s “likely,” not “unlikely.”

                      “Saliently” doesn’t have a damned thing to do with it.

                      I’m just sayin’.

                    2. which is why I never said that unlikely things happen more often than likely ones. I have no responsibility for what others independently impute to me, in intentional or unintentional disregard for what I actually said.

                      The word I used was “saliently,” and the reason I used it is explained above.

                      Whatever it is “you’re just sayin'” to me, all it ever really amounts to is: “I hate you, I hate you, I hate you!” Yeah, yeah, I get it. I hurt your little itsy bitsy feelings once, and you just can’t get over it. Very interesting. We’re all thrilled.

                      In the future, just to cut to the chase, I’ll answer all of your limited, and tedious, variations on that theme with this.

                    3. name recognition

                      cash on hand

                      excited core of support

                      I could go on- so let’s

                      name recognition

                      cash on hand

                      excited core of support

                    5. our disagreement could be useful if you didn’t come across as so condescending and superior.

                      And your nobility and honor would be more …noble and honorable if I understood the campaign strategy besides he’s an awesome candidate .

                      And your need to get the last word would be cute if it wasn’t pointless.

                    6. sincerely, but it’s my right to defend a good candidate from comments which serve no purpose other than to impune by virtue of horse-race values. Let me clarify the positions I’ve advanced in this conversation, that you seem not to understand:

                      1) I’m irrelevant to this conversation. As are you. It’s what we say that is the topic, not who we are. If you consider it “condescending and superior” of me to soundly debunk your central argument that the utility of your comments derives from the fact that you are opposed to wasting time on candidates you deem to be long-shots, and so are justified in engaging in this waste of time to explain that your waste of time is motivated by a desire not to waste time, that’s completely understandable: No one likes to be made to look foolish, expecially when they did most of the work themself. And I don’t like to make anyone look foolish, even when they did most of the work themself. But if you feel this repeated, futile need to try to do damage to the campaign of a good candidate on such absurd grounds, then that’s just the price you pay.

                      2) I’m not proposing a campaign strategy. I’m praising a good candidate. As I’ve repeated numerous times, and in numerous contexts, I’m not commenting on the horse race; I’m commenting on the qualities of the individual running for office. Those who consider such trivialities irrelevant really need to re-examine their priorities.

                      3) I don’t care who has the last word, as long is it is a factually correct and well-reasoned one. Feel free to say something that does not require correction, and I will happily let it stand unchallenged.

                    7. …I know you realize that it takes far less time to discuss the low probability of a candidate’s winning than to actually work in support of that candidate’s race.  Yet, you seem to equate the two.  It is no real contradiction to spend time on the internet dicussing the waste of time it would take to support a candidate (the latter would take far more hours than the former).  In any event, your disagreement on this subject seems to boil down to what “constructive” means.  Is it constructive to point out the fact that a candidate has no real chance of election?  I suppose that depends on one’s goal, which is quite personal and (as to others) is mostly beyond your knowledge.

                    8. first several dozen episodes of posting his criticisms of John’s campaign every time John’s name is mentioned, because, of course, it is the nature of political discourse that people will make such comments. But, if you follow the history of this seeming obsession, then you can see where my objection comes from. Certainly, by definition, MADCO has some reason for posting (a goal, which is beyond my knowledge). But so do I: I want to refocus the discussion on the candidate’s qualities, and bring into question the utility of focusing attention elsewhere.

                      And it’s relevant to note that MADCO did not just discuss that working on the campaign would be a waste of time, but claimed that the utility of his arguments were based on the desire to avoid wasting time. The legitimacy of that argument has nothing to do with the difference between how much time it takes to work on a campaign and how much time it takes to post criticisms on a blog: It only relates to the time it takes to post criticisms, which is some positive number. In other words, negative time is saved by doing what was legitimated on the basis of saving positive time. That quite literally just doesn’t add up.

                      Most importantly, I, like all of us, have an agenda: I want to shift the balance of discourse in the direction of substantive policy concerns, and away from horse-race obsessions. When discussing races, I want to shift attention toward the qualities of the candidate as a prospective office-holder and away from the qualities of the candidate as a candidate. If every post I, or others, make attempting to do that is responded to, particularly by one individual, with an attempt to shift the balance back in the direction I am trying to shift it away from, then I am motivated to try to counter that effort.

                    9. even before I was a candidate, I never much liked the open-season-on-candidates-and-public-officials mentality. We want to encourage the best and the brightest and the most dedicated to run for office, but a great many extremely talented people are discouraged by the vitriolic attitude of the public toward political candidates and office holders.

                      John isn’t just a great candidate, he’s also a friend. We’re better off with him and people like him running for office. This national sport of sniping at candidates on the basis of anything and everything that can be conjured up as a justication for doing so is not in our collective interest, and is not something I wish to see go unchallenged.

                    10. If, indeed, you recognize the utility of realizing the uphill battle faced by this John person, why do you argue against discussion of that fact?  How does discussion of a fact, which has utility, reduce its utility?  I think your personal stake in this scenario has clouded the issue.

                    11. is the utility of private discussion versus the utility of public discussion. Political campaigns don’t need blogs to inform them of the electoral math. The discussion on blogs is relevant, from a campaign’s point of view, only for the impact it has on public perceptions. For that reason, discussion here that negatively affects the prospects of a good candidate by emphasizing long odds, even if dealing with considerations that that candidate must analyze and address, are not useful to the candidate of those who want to see him elected.

                      Here is an analogy: It may be useful and important for an individual to discuss personal issues with a counselor or confidante, while it could be simultanously counterproductive for that discussion to be made public and discussed more broadly.

                      None of us can control public discourse, nor should we be able to do so. But many of us are interested in affecting it. I participate here precisely because of that interest. Every time I post here, it is because I feel some personal stake, whether it is in a particular policy, a particular candidate, or a particular line of reasoning. In that sense, the issue is always “clouded” by my personal stake, though I try mightily to define my personal stake as one which values clarity.

                      So here are my reasons for arguing as I have: 1) I want smart, progressive policies to prevail, locally, nationally, and globally; 2) I think John Flerlage is an excellent candidate for advancing that agenda, and so I want John Flerlage to be a successful candidate in a variety of ways, all of which are attainable; 3) I think that harping on the long odds of the Democratic candidate in CD6 on a public forum works against rather than in support of that end; so 4) I actively oppose such harping on this public forum, and favor what I think better advances the goals I am fighting for, which is a focus on the truly impressive qualities of the candidate, in an effort to improve his chance of winning.

                      Have I re-found you? 🙂

                    12. “…commenting on the qualities of the individual running for office.”

                      He’s commendable and all things good in a candidate. So stipulated.

                      “Those who consider such trivialities irrelevant really need to re-examine their priorities.”

                      Disagree.

                      He’s a great candidate- who appears to be running a campaign that cannot win despite his personal greatness.

                      The sun will come up tomorrow, so to speak.  And the day after that.  And eventually it will be election day (which is really several weeks).

                      And someone will win this election- we both hope it’s John Flerlage.

                    13. If he loses, you may still be right and I wrong. Or I could be right.

                      Either way- based on your stated motivation I will acknowledge your way is …better even if I don’t agree it’s more likely to produce the desired outcome – his victory.

                      PS

                      I don’t consider my comments (now and prior) sniping at he candidate. Perhaps my quick dismissal of the odds is overly harsh.

                    14. I’d just like to express my respect and admiration for these last two posts of yours. To come back with such a conciliatory tone after I was so harsh with you is a tribute to your good character and your good will. Thanks.

                    16. But I’m pretty sure it means you’ve got a peanut.

                      Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

                    18. MADCO:

                      if you didn’t come across as so condescending and superior.

                      Harvey:

                      Feel free to say something that does not require correction, and I will happily let it stand unchallenged.

                      Stevie–I hear you’re running for public office.  Are you going to accept the votes of the great unwashed, or are you going to tell them they’re intellectually inferior; i.e., full of shit?

                    19. just let us know when you figure out which end of the egg to crack. That will be a joyous day in Lilliput.

                      In the meantime, I’ll continue to commit the horrible sin of saying what I honestly believe rather than what you think is most politically expedient for me to say.

                    21. would I care whether I answer any question of yours? I will always respond to, and engage with, reasonable people of good will, and, when necessary, with those who are neither. You fit none of those criteria.

  9. He will be here next Wednesday, November 18th at a public meet and greet. The free “get to know you” will begin at 7:00 p.m. and run to 8:30 p.m. at the Estes Park Public Library, in the Hondius Room and is open to the public.

    Sponsored by Conservatives in Colorado. Contact person is Helen Lefley and her number is: 970-586-9482.

    Anyone want to join me for an evening of fun and frivolity? I’ll be at the bar down the street.  

  10. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…

    FORT COLLINS, Colo. – The Colorado parents accused of pulling a spectacular hoax by reporting their son was aboard a runaway balloon pleaded guilty Friday to charges that could bring some jail time and probation.

    Richard Heene pleaded guilty to knowingly and falsely influencing Larimer County Sheriff Jim Alderden, a felony, in the episode that sent law enforcement scrambling to rescue 6-year-old Falcon until he was found safe at the family home. Mayumi Heene pleaded guilty to knowingly filing a false report with emergency services, a misdemeanor.

  11. http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/m…

    In local news, RTD is shutting down eastbound Route 36 next week to install a new bus ramp and pedestrian overpass.

    I like this because

    1. I hate cars and want their drivers to suffer.

    2. Pedestrian overpasses are beautiful.

    3. Most importantly, the bus detour into Broomfield is full of stop lights and left-turn-only signals which can easily add 10 minutes to any trip. Broomfield was easily the worst Park-and-Ride on the 36 bus routes, and I’m thrilled that it’s the first priority.

            1. Not as bad as Texas – but still funny.  CaГ±on City really IS a small city at the mouth of a canyon – and used the Spanish spelling for the “ny” sound in CaГ±on.  I lived in “Cannon” City for a number of years – many folks just never get the spelling/pronunciation.  There is a group in FB called “The Г±” for people who have lived there.

  12. Erick Erickson sent me the following imperative:

    Today Barack Obama is going to announce that the terrorist mastermind of September 11th, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, will be sent to New York City for a criminal trial in a civilian court.

    In that trial, the terrorist will get all the rights afforded an American citizen in a criminal trial, including the right to a fair trial, the right to a taxpayer funded attorney, the right to review all the evidence against him, potentially including classified intelligence matters, the right to exclude evidence against him including, potentially, any confession obtained through enhanced interrogation techniques, etc.

    At best, this will be a show trial fit not for the American Republic, but a third world kleptocratic totalitarian regime.  At worse, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will gain access to classified material he can then leak to other terrorists while New York yet again becomes a target for terrorists.  We have already had occasions in this country where terrorists’ sympathetic lawyers have conveyed information, orders, and plans to other terrorists.

    Is there something wrong with my liberal brain? I see those phrases, “right to a fair trial, the right to a taxpayer funded attorney, the right to review all the evidence against him,” and I think, “Hey cool. Those are the things that make our system great.”

    Is the idea that only an unfair trial would find Khalid Sheikh Mohammed guilty of a crime? Is the idea that a “fair trial” is equivalent to a kleptocratic dictator’s show trial? What defines a show trial other than the fact that the whole thing is set up so that (evidence or not) the accused is found guilty?

    Most importantly, why do any conservatives take seriously the views of a guy who’s so obviously a complete loser with no testicles? When did conservatives all become Shaggy and Scooby Doo?

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

58 readers online now

Newsletter

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

Colorado Pols