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
60%↑
40%↑
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*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
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) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
December 11, 2009 01:31 AM UTC
86 Comments
http://africaid.com/
AfricAid’s origins date back to 1996, when its founder, Ashley Shuyler (then maybe 13), journeyed to Tanzania, and saw vast difference between her life in Evergreen CO and the girls of Africa. Learning that only about 5% of girls in Tanzania are able to complete a secondary school education she became determined to find a way to help provide young African girls with their own educational opportunities.
I came into contact with her in 2002 shortly after my return from Africa. She was still in high school, but I was amazed at her success. She had without planning identitified one of the key drivers in global poverty: the lack of empowerment for women. Even if I wondered if she was engaged in a little resume padding to get in to an Ivy league School, I knew she was making a direct positive impact on the world.
While at Harvard she continued working on the charity and taught in Africa and learned more about the challenges. I’m glad that a dose of hard reality didn’t weigh on her will to heavily because it often does when confronted with the institutional impediments in Africa.
Today, she is a year (?) out of college and working to expand Africaid’s operations and to close the loop so that girls get education and women get an opportunity to earn money.
After that note: please be nice to each othe and David
But if you think I did a poor job – please do let me know. I think my interviews are better because of the feedback I get. With that said, please put why with the feedback.
and reminding us that the real weapons of mass destruction are ignorance, poverty and disease.
Good comment, Ally.
I would add the Central Asia Institute,
https://www.ikat.org/
which is the group founded by Greg Mortenson, author of “Three Cups of Tea,” and his new book “Stones into Schools”
His focus is building schools with communities in Pakistan and Afghanistan. He also emphasizes the importance of educating girls. The books are well worth the read.
He did a fundraiser at red rocks in September(?) for Africaid.
Nice job, as always. Thanks for posting this.
So we’ve had the Benett interview and the Romanoff interview. Over on another post the Benett vs. Romanoff debate rages on, with well over a hundred comments.
It was almost a year ago when president elect Obama selected Senator Salazar for a cabinet post, and the speculation launched over who would be his replacement. Gov. Ritter even invited the public to weigh in on who he should appoint, and many did, including myself (My first choice was Perlmutter, my second choice would have been AR.)
Surprise, surprise when Ritter picked Benett who wasn’t even on the radar screen (and there was criticism about the Gov. asking for, and apparently ignoring, every bodies responses).
So Bennet has the seat, and AR is trying to take it away. In the interview, I gathered his best response as to why he’s challanging is that Benett was appointed, and that the rank and file Democratic voters deserve an opportunity to pick the Democratic nominee for Senator. I would concede that that’s a valid point, and therefore we have been given a choice with AR’s candidacy.
But a choice between what? The fact is, Romanoff has failed to differentiate any substantial issues between him and Benett that would necessitate making a choice. Without that, the contention that his candidacy is all about empowering Dems who were disenfranchised by the appointment process by giving them a choice rings hollow.
If AR’s campaign is really all about giving us a choice, then lets see it. So far, I haven’t.
I posted the 200th comment!
you get a Pols star on your forehead !
I didn’t put this in the “interview” because I wanted it to be what he was responding with and not my interpretation of that. (I guess with this approach I can never be a talking head on TV.)
While Romanoff does take the tack that Bennet is not the incumbent because he was not elected, he did not harp on that.
He did talk to his experience and skill in getting the legislation you want through. So he presented himself as the better choice in terms of effectiveness.
The problem for him is that this is a pretty weak argument even if neither was presently holding the office. It’s very weak in the present situation.
I think he’s still trying to find what to use to differentiate in terms of the job he would do. He’s got strong support because of who he is and what he’s done. But that’s not enough to win, that’s merely enough to make him competitive.
That’s a rather unusual reading of the word “incumbent.” Is Romanoff hoping to distinguish himself by holding his own, contradictory position on the English language?
Forever would be my guess.
They see him as as superior alternative to Senator Bennet and imply he is some kind Гјber liberal of R dragon slayer. His record suggest otherwise, but no matter.
Purity and ideology for everyone. Not to mention a little crush.
I didn’t hear one. Now difference in approach/effectiveness can be significant and a major reason to select a Senator. Look at Allard who spent 12 years doing nothing – what a waste.
But that is not a difference that will get the far left charged up – elect a more effective moderate. And I think Bennet has shown himself to be pretty effective so this will be a hard sell.
Then why not ask the direct question: “What’s the difference between you and your opponent?”
It wasn’t a bad interview, don’t get me wrong. But it didn’t really get to the point.
and
And if you listen to the audio you will hear me try it several different ways. One time I even told him “your not giving me what I’m looking for [a difference]”
Too bad that I don’t find you very interesting, based on what you type.
There are many repeat bloggers here, and…..I must admit….they’re all infuriating.
We see their names every day.
They are not the story.
No obsession with you – obsession with progressive politics, sure.
So Bennet’s track record makes him a moderate and we supporters get blasted by you for being pragmatic and not <__fitb__>*
– progressive enough
– loyal enough
– D enough
Something.
The implcation is that Romanoff is the clear liberal/progressive choice.
And so here comes AR. Moderate with pragmatic followers. Where’s the blast?
Ohno- that’s just for the other guy’s moderation and pragmatic followers.
I promise to be just as supportive of the D nominee no matter who it is. Will you?
Wade says it’s been a while since he’s voted Republican and he “[doesn’t] see that changing this year” — a far cry from saying he’ll support Bennet if he’s the nominee. JO and Sharon haven’t said one way or the other.
It’s a good thing JO, Sharon and Wade represent the hysterical fringe of Romanoff supporters.
I’ve never blasted AR (or MB) for anything. I’ve stayed out of this debate, except for occasional comments about peripheral issues that were brought up in the course of it. My only statement since AR entered the race, is that I respect and support them both, and believe that either one would do (or continue to do, as the case may be) an excellent job representing us in the U.S. Senate.
I haven’t made a single post supporting AR over MB, either. Don’t know where you got that idea.
Sharon Hanson, not Steve Harvey! My bad.
In the future you’ll be StH, or SH, TFO*
*the funny one
I guess I benefitted by comparison on that one! (sorry, Sharon)
http://www.girleffect.org/
I rather enjoy your nuts-and-bolts approach, as opposed to trying to turn a hard news interview into a literary masterpiece. And your analysis is thoughtful and fair.
David, you are very dismissive of AR’s point that MB was appointed and not elected and 3 million voters have yet to weigh in. That is the crux of his candidacy. That is the justification you all have been clamoring for and you just glossed over it. Whether you agree with it or not you can’t simply dismiss it by saying, “he is viewed by the incumbent by most.” The most have not spoken.
Anyone who meets the requirements in the constitution is justified to run. I’m looking for a reason to vote for him.
As to Bennet being viewed as the incumbent by most – I’m sorry if you don’t like that but he is.
who thinks Bennett is the incumbent. He is the incumbent by law – he holds the seat.
who thinks Bennett is the incumbent. He is the incumbent by law – he holds the seat.
What matters is whether the voters see him as an incumbent. Voters’ perceptions are not constrained by technical definitions.
person that I know.
Does he know what his people put out there everyday?
Romanoff isn’t giving his supporters very much positive to say about him (that is different than Bennet) and so they are left being negative about Bennet and Ritter.
Romanoff needs to put out themes to expand upon. “The voters should get to choose” isn’t a bad point but once you’ve said it, what else is there to say about it? The supporters are left trying to claim that Bennet bribed Ritter into giving him the seat.
The decision not to take PAC money is another good point, but again, it doesn’t bear much discussing, unless you want to get into “Bennet = corrupt” territory. And it backfires in that we Dems know that the candidate will need to raise a truckload of money in the general election. Perhaps it is a bit quixotic to cut off sources of funds, when fundraising isn’t your strength, to say the least?
How the primary goes next year will depend greatly on which candidate is more successful in appealing to the hearts of voters, not their heads. The endless arguments over incumbent vs not, best appointment by the Guv vs not, positions on hot topics, etc, will not be the drivers of how this race goes. The candidate who best understands how people make voting decisions, and best understands how to appeal on the emotional level, will win.
Ah, ColoradoPols: the Linguists’ Blog Site. Word of the Day: “Incumbent”
The people, at least the ones who vote occasionally, confer upon certain individuals the power, the authority, to represent their interests in Faraway Valhalla. These representatives ride forth on charging stallions under the flag: Incumbents. They have been voted into office. The office itself carries no legitimacy; their legitimacy is wholly contained within how they got into office.
Occasionally, one of this valiant band goes off to the side, perhaps to Administer the Interior, in which case it may come to pass that a youngun’, thought to be hiding a smile somewhere ‘neath his furrowed brow, is placed upon the emptied stallion, to maintain symmetry and all that. The flag says Incumbent, to be sure, but the badge does not. It says: ForTheMoment.
Over time, Boy Newcomer begins taking smiling lessons, plays with the gavel from time to time, pokes his footsie into isolated spots in the sylvan woods and wide places in the roads of Far West Kansas. And the citizenry begins to see something new, or rather something very old indeed: a veteran and loyal alumnus of the Private Woods Do Not Enter owned by Sir Philip the 89th (richest among Fortune’s fortunate few in 2006), one of those who are quite used to Buying Things.
Thus evolveth the Tongue of the English: “incumbent” becomes “incomebent,” although ForTheMoment remains unchanged: it still means UntilThePeopleSpeak.
At first I thought it was “come” vs. “cum” whih would have seemed out of character for everyone involved.
It is a powerful advantage in an election. You can like or dislike that fact – but it doesn’t change the fact. Romanoff needs to counter that, not denigrate it.
To a large degree this primary is going to be on Bennet’s record. That is always the battle in a primary with an incumbent. So he needs to show a clear distinction between what Bennet has done and what he would do.
If Bennet was not an incumbent this would be a very different race and Romanoff’s present approach would be a strong one.
…when it’s been earned.
…because it facilitates getting publicity throughout the term.
…when an incumbent, elected, is running against a challenger from the other party.
“Incumbent” is a word that normally connotes “someone previously elected,” our lexicographers nothwithstanding. It is that fact, of having appealed to voters and won, that gives “incumbency” its power and influence–not being the New Year’s surprise of the embattled governor.
The fact that Bennet was appointed by Ritter is not a reason to vote for him. Is it?
incumbencies via appintment do not confer all that much advantage. Piles of money and heavy hitter political establishment support do. Advantage Bennet.
No question about “advantage Bennet.” And primarily (say I) for the money, the source of which makes it–and him— highly suspect.
I seem to recall another recent candidate who had similar advantages — endorsements from the established conservative party incumbents, Pacman funds. Hmmm. Sir Edmund Hillary? No, that’s wasn’t it. Someone, anyway, who was considered “in.” Didn’t work, though.
Are we ready, so soon after 2008, to slide back to the “establishment” mode of offices bought and sold? Possibly. I’m not entirely ready to concede defeat yet.
Obama was the darling of the financial services industry starting quite early in the campaign, and he raked in contributions hand over fist from bankers, investment bankers, money managers and all the rest.
I hope you don’t understand Colorado politics as poorly as you seem to grasp the 2008 election.
“Obama was the darling of the financial services industry.”
Oh.
No question about “advantage Bennet.” And primarily (say I) for the money, the source of which makes it–and him— highly suspect.
I seem to recall another recent candidate who had similar advantages — endorsements from the established conservative party incumbents, Pacman funds. Hmmm. Sir Edmund Hillary? No, that’s wasn’t it. Someone, anyway, who was considered “in.” Didn’t work, though.
Are we ready, so soon after 2008, to slide back to the “establishment” mode of offices bought and sold? Possibly. I’m not entirely ready to concede defeat yet.
It didn’t make any more sense 45 minutes ago, when you first posted it.
He’s actually more liberal than Romanoff if you review the Romanoff record,
this would be a very different race and Romanoff’s present approach would be a strong one.”
So, the one advantage of Bennet over Romanoff is the fact that Bill Ritter, for reasons still unexplained, appointed someone who had never run for office, and this is insurmountable?
Why should a voter be persuaded to vote for Bennet instead of Romanoff on this basis? “Bill Knows Best?”
You are right on this, though: The fact of Ritter’s appointment is the only reason I can find cited for preferring Bennet over Romanoff. “He’s the incumbent, gotta stick with the incumbent.” Oh yeah, and the money, fugeddabout where it came from.
Ability to win elections? Nah, who cares about that! Aside from the incessant yammering of Nature’s Spectrum on this site, is there some other bit of evidence to suggest Bennet is the stronger candidate?
That’s not a serious question, JO, since you again and again demonstrate your contempt for plain facts, but here goes:
Sure, if you leave aside the fact Bennet is the incumbent and has a tremendous fundraising advantage, the candidates are on a more even footing — both pragmatic, centrist Democrats raised in D.C., went to Yale, moved to Colorado in the ’90s and shot to powerful positions based on their smarts and their charm.
But in the real world, incumbency has its advantages, as does an overwhelming lead in fundraising.
Bennet is in the news regularly scoring victories in the Senate, bringing home federal funding to Colorado and making consequential decisions every day about health care, the environment, Afghanistan and the economy.
Meanwhile, Romanoff gets in the news once, when he says he’s renouncing PAC funding, despite having been quite a fan back when he was a serious candidate for other office. The implication: He’s willing to throw the race to the Republicans because he can’t raise enough money to compete. Oh, and by the way, his campaign is in disarray with no one in charge.
As for other evidence to suggest Bennet is the stronger candidate? How about poll results, which consistently show Bennet outperforming Romanoff. Or is that too reality-based for JO and her ilk?
There’s also evidence suggesting Romanoff is the weaker candidate. While both have run elections in Denver (Romanoff from his safe house district, Bennet running Denver bond issues and school board bond issues), only one has gone down in flames in a statewide election.
But then, JO isn’t interested in any facts, she just wants to pile overwrought metaphors on top of stupid nicknames on top of lazy reasoning on top of hysteria. Good luck with that.
…without the unique insight that says voters are really voting for the school superintendent when the ballot says “bond issue.” Seems like I’ve heard of Kit Bond — Missouri, no? But never heard of Sen. Bond Issue! Huh!
Admitted, I haven’t been reading the same sources of news as you have, where you read:
Help us out here: what would be different if Bennet –not a Democrat in that Senate seat, but Mike Bennet — were not in Washington? Would he not be “regularly scoring victories?” Such as? “Public option scores thanks to Bennet.” And “Health care reform passes; Bennet given credit for scoring victory!” Like those you mean?
Consequential decisions? Such as whether or not to sit in with the Blue Dogs today? Such as to say “Without objection, so ordered” or “So ordered, without objection” while tightly controlling what goes on in the Senate by wielding the mighty gavel and remembering not to look too, too confused–and never smile!— when the CSpan camera is on you?
But, what do I know of how the Senate is controlled and manipulated and influenced by freshmen temporary appointees? Our mighty incumbent is in charge! Be impressed! Gotta be a sophisticate to know all these things.
Make way for Mighty Michael! [Trumpets, drums, cymbals! TaTa!] (Sure you’re not thinking of Mighty Mouse on that other cartoon channel?)
Between Hillary conceding and Romo announcing, or when he started making calls telling people he was going to run, what had Romanoff been doing?
The answer is nothing, except for losing the A-59 race. Your contention is, of course, that Michael Bennet hadn’t done anything until he was appointed. RG was just trying to show you that just isn’t true.
I’m just glad that AR and MB have decided to keep this race above the belt. I think both of their groups of supporters could stand to drop the negativity. Hope and change and all–that is, if you’re still interested.
that some of Bennet’s supporters make claims on his behalf for what he has done in the Senate over the past 11 months that border on the absurd, and then assert that those of us less impressed don’t “understand” politics/how the Senate works/what makes the world go ’round when we can’t see the truth in these claims.
AND my contention is that Bennet, right out of the box, three months after Barack Obama carried Colorado (not Bill Ritter, who wasn’t on the ballot, and certainly not Michael Bennet, who has never been on any ballot–except under the name “School Bond Issue”) made it his business to spring to the defense of entrenched interests, push back against Obama’s efforts to combat recession, and defend the sanctity of mortgage terms in an era of virulently fraudulent mortgage lending, and … watch this space … to resist big-time, strong-arm reform of the financial markets (“unintended consequences,” I believe were his words just this week) whose PACs do so love him (the latter based on a preliminary look at the list, with numbers, of the PACs that have contributed to Bennet’s campaign…not an “impression,” “hysteria,” not being “overwrought” — words that tell far more about Bennet’s defender than his critic).
AND it is my contention that the fact that Bill Ritter woke up one morning with what he thought was a bright idea — let’s appoint someone to an elective office who has never run for any office before — doesn’t obligate me in the very least to support that person on grounds of being “the incumbent.”
And NOW I read: Drop the negativity. Don’t say anything mean about Mikey! (While we carry on about Romanoff….). Somehow, I don’t actually think you were intentionally making a joke, even evoking Obama (“hope and change and all”) no less! Are you trying to suggest that Michael Bennet is the extension of the Obama campaign? Then, brother, I conclude that you–and your fellow Bennetians–must be feeling a tad desperate.
You left out stupid nicknames and lazy reasoning, which your point about Bennet and bankers displays quite well. Why? Because Romanoff took an equal proportion of PAC money when he was casting votes, including from banking interests. There’s another word for that: hypocrisy.
As for hysterical and overwrought? “Ritter is the new Blago,” entire diaries devoted to taking offense someone made fun of you, etc., etc., etc.
People taking responsibility for their actions must transpire for any progress to be made
Both candidates understand ths, Neither is a socialist or a Bolshevik.
What ROmanoff says and how he would vote are two diffeeent universes.
I can say that I’m disapointed that the Democratic refinance program rewards people that bought too much house, and discriminates against people that paid their bils on time and lived within their means.
In order to qualify for 2% or 3% loans, the mortgage has to represent more than 31% oof disposable household income.
Romanoff could have promised to conduct regular community tours, something like Feingold does in Wisconsin. I agree that corporations have the advantage. As a Senator, if he wants to counter lobbyist influence, I want to hear how he’s going to do that – and not only by legislation. I won’t give Andrew a fail for this issue, but I certainly will not have any expectation that he will accomplish anything in this area.
I can’t go along with this assertion that to have a good job, one must have a college education. In fact, I see people who have worked for the city or the county since high school and are doing well. They could afford a house back in their twenties when the prices were lower. Plus, they have job security and health care benefits. Those things count for a lot and increased income can’t replace them when we’re talking about the inflation in health care costs.
Anyway, I’m all for college, but don’t think it’s the only way to go. Do we really expect solar panel manufacturers and installers to have completed college?
So would I. You always start a negotiation with more than you think you can get but this was the administration and leadership’s call, not something that any freshman senator has much to do with. It sounds good but is of no practical relevance to addressing any difference between him and Bennet on this issue.
His answers on Afghanistan, jobs, banking etc were pretty uninspired, certainly not any more “progressive” than your average centrist. In general this interview does nothing to change my view that Romanoff can do the most good by dropping out ASAP and that his being the darling of the progressive base is a complete mystery.
otherwise the D opposition would be just…well….irrelevant.
Oh wait, see if we have a priamry and bash each other’s brains in and divide the party- then what?
…as Elected Politician. I’m sure he can find another appointment somewhere.
If only Romanoff could have found an appointment somewhere, despite having applied and applied and applied for one!
Bennet is a good guy.
Romanoff is a good guy.
I’ll support either equally enregetically in the general.
Unless some as yet unnamed mystery progressive enters- then I may have to reevaluate. But if it’s one of them vs. one of the current R candiates – either of them will have my support (flaws and all).
The word “incumbent” does not denote or connote that one is elected. The word simply means “the current holder of an office.”
As such, Michael Bennet is the incumbent Junior Senator from Colorado.
You may not like the process, or the Senator’s voting record, or the man personally, but the fact of the matter remains: Michael Bennet was appointed Senator properly via the Colorado Constitutional process.
The use of phrases like “consider him the incumbent,” is disrespectful of the office, and very likely politically damaging, in the sense that this implies that Senator Bennet is somehow illegitimate.
n/t
…there is a difference between people who are elected to their office and those who are appointed–even to the same office!
IF I voted for an incumbent, he/she is my choice. If my preferred candidate lost, at least I had a chance to vote for the office-holder and can yield to the majority’s will until next time.
Neither of those statement is true for appointed officials, whatever the constitutional process may offer as a temporary substitute.
Nor is the natural political impact and advantage of “incumbency” the same for elected officials as for those temporarily appointed to fill a vacancy.
Having once had a professional interest in dictionaries, I’m quite amazed by your posting.
almost elicits a weird kind of admiration. Almost, but not quite. It just can’t overcome the irritation and even occasional disgust at the waste of time and energy expended because of JO’s mulishness.
It is clear that JO (he or she, doesn’t matter) will never accept Bennet as the incumbent. Others present reasonable arguments that he is the incumbent, but it changes nothing. Might as well give up trying on that.
What also seems clear is that JO, for obvious but unknown personal reasons, cannot accept that Bennet took the oath as senator, has the legitimate title of Senator, is in Washington interacting with the Big Dogs, is officially part of the sausage making, gets quotes and even headlines in the press, and is in every way the man doing all the things JO thinks AR should be doing.
Reality is hard cheese. And the person who refuses to accept reality is often a pain in the butt.
The point — and JO, please correct me if I’m misstating your point — is that it doesn’t really matter what the supposed technical definition of “incumbent” is. What matters is the degree to which the voters define a recently appointed office-holder as an electoral incumbent.
In this instance, as is so often the case, the prescriptive definition is less relevant than the descriptive. (Miss Thistlebottom notwithstanding.)
My point is that there is an absolute meaning of the word “incumbent.” It means the person who currently holds an office, and it does not carry connotation of legitimacy or elected status.
However, maybe I am addressing the wrong thing. I’m reminded of an episode of “Friends” in which Joey uses air-quotes quite “incorrectly.”
I might suggest that the advantage of “incumbency” has very little to do with the fact that one was elected previously, but instead quite a lot to do with the holding of the office. An incumbent is able to control a media cycle far more effectively than someone not in office. An incumbent is actually able to influence government in a direct and tangible way. Incumbency is a powerful force directly supportive (or in Marilyn Musgrave’s case, detrimental to) an (re)election effort.
JO, I get that you don’t like Senator Bennet, but honestly, you sound like an irrational tea bagger going on and on about what the “Constitution says…” while ignoring the very obvious facts of 200+ years of lawmaking and case law.
Senator Bennet IS the incumbent. You don’t like it, and so you feel it alright to diminish him by attacking the manner in which he came to the seat, and in doing so, suggesting that he is illegitimate. Nice work.
Instead of arguing about this with me, and putting quotation marks around “incumbent,” maybe you should just come out and start calling him a usurper?
…need to get new reading glasses. If you had them, you would discover that no where have I ever gone on about what the Constitution says, case law, etc. No where at all did I say Bennet did not have a legal right to cast votes in the Senate. (I may regret that he can hold office for nearly two years without facing the electorate, as he would in other states, but that’s a shortcoming of Colorado law that needs to be addressed separately.)
…need to read my posts again with your new glasses. If you did, you would see that I have never said Bennet is not the office-holder in the narrow, technical, legal definition of that term. I have said that there is a difference between incumbents who were elected and those who were not, and that the political influence of incumbency through appointment is a lot different, and a lot less, than incumbency by election, especially when that appointment was of someone who had never…I say again, never … run for office at any level at any time, and by someone who is widely perceived to be politically weak in his own right and thus has relatively little political good will to spread around to his minions. These posts are not legal briefs, and the word legitimacy has meanings beyond the text of the law.
Rather than tell me how to argue my case, I suggest you first (a) reread the argument and (b) concentrate on making your own counter-argument, possibly illustrating why Bennet’s ability to use the privileges of office in his campaign for the nomination is an argument for nominating him.
–BlueGreen (or is it RedGreen; I’m colorblind)
There are two words in that line that wouldn’t both be there without the other. “She” is one of them. Care to guess what the other one is?
It’s a sexist term.
Like when I suggested he was a frustrated old man who vented here because the neighbor kids already stay the hell off his lawn.
I use the term sometimes too.
I was just solving JO’s riddle.
I aspire to becoming the neighborhhod crank who recalls when movies were $5.50 and tv only had 7 channels and makes the damnkids stay out of the pyrocantha.
Beautiful red berries, right? Not edible.
as a sexist, you’re really barking up the wrong tree. Why are you so willing to change the subject all the time from the issue at hand to the people with whom you’re arguing?
Though your conclusion is wrong. Wade’s posts and diaries are equally hysterical.