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
December 29, 2009 04:04 PM UTC

Tuesday Open Thread

  • 78 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“Facts have long since upstaged fiction, and the novelistic imagination now contents itself with documenting incidents it wouldn’t have the temerity to invent.”

–Peter Conrad

Tweet
Share

Comments

78 thoughts on “Tuesday Open Thread”

  1. Now that it is clear that Michael Bennet has voted for a heath insurance industry health care bill which clearly is a win for the insurance companies I wonder how the Bennet sock puppets here on Colorado Pols will spin the facts.

    And recently there have been other typists on Colorado Pols who support the anointed one Bennet and have called anyone who dares to post the facts liars.  So here is the low down on Bennet’s historic views on health care reform and the end result – a health care reform product that will cost taxpayers more money, destroy lives by bankrupting middleclass families and gives our working families more to worry about financially.  And it does all this while giving huge handouts to the insurance companies who will then increase your premiums to record levels never seen before.  

    These are the facts folks.  Read them and weep or continue to stick your head in the sand and ignore the facts.

    Sep 2nd, 2009 at 11:28 am Think Progress

    Senator Michael Bennett’s blog has a post up opening with the observation that “There has recently been some confusion on Michael Bennet’s support for a public option” and offering the following new video in which he articulates strong support for such an option:

    http://yglesias.thinkprogress….

    And read this on the Denver Post

    Posted: 08/29/2009 01:00:00 AM MDT

    Updated: 08/29/2009 01:11:03 AM MDT

    http://www.denverpost.com/port…

    Bennet said that he favored a so-called public option, which would provide an alternative insurance source for those who can’t get private insurance. “But as I stand here today, I think it’s very unlikely that the public option part of this will pass.”

    And here he stands in Durango and further fails to differentiate his position on health care reform with voters.

    The Durango Herald

    Article Last Updated; Tuesday, August 18, 2009  7:55AM

    http://www.durangoherald.com/s…

    We’re trying to do something big in D.C., but there’s a lot of room for unintended consequences.

    – U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo.

    Bennet, speaking after the meeting, said reform shouldn’t hinge on the public option, though he has said he supports it.

    “I don’t think we should be drawing lines in the sand,” he said.

    And the final result at this time.

    Washington Post Staff Writer

    Monday, December 21, 2009

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

    — The National Republican Senatorial Committee: Strategists at the Senate GOP campaign arm were rejoicing over the weekend with the news that targeted Democrats including Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) and Michael Bennet (Colo.) were going to vote for the measure. Unlike Nelson or even Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu (D), who is up for reelection in 2012, neither Lincoln nor Bennet got anything major in exchange for their vote — meaning they could face the blowback from those unhappy with the legislation in their respective states without an accompanying sweetener to make the bill more palatable.

      1. that’s right, for me to vote for someone, I require a little sweetener.  If they’re not bringing in the dough, they won’t get a rise out of me (bread joke!).

        I expected the opening comment to have a line where Bennet says he can only vote for a bill w/ the public option.  I have been impressed with him so far in his term.

      2. http://www.andrewromanoff.com/…

        Statement on Senate Health Care Debate12/17/2009

        Consumers lost another round in Washington yesterday when the insurance industry and its allies in the U.S. Senate refused to allow discussion of the American Health Security Act of 2009 — a proposal to cover all Americans at a lower cost than the other plans now under consideration.  The defeat capped a week of losses for American families, as the public option and other insurance reforms fell victim to industry pressure and Congressional cowardice.

        Universal coverage wasn’t the only casualty.  Someone in Colorado died yesterday — and another person will die today, and tomorrow, and the next day — because health insurance remains out of reach.  For millions of Americans, this debate is literally a matter of life or death.  

        We took on the insurance industry in Colorado — and we won.  We forced companies to pay what they owe when they owe it.  That’s the kind of leadership we need in the U.S. Senate: the courage to stand up to powerful interest groups and to stick up for ordinary people.

        What we find instead is a Senate seduced by special interests and coddled by corporate contributors.  Too many members on both sides of the aisle are unwilling to bite the hand that feeds them.  That’s why so many Americans are losing their savings to medical expenses, losing confidence in our political system, and losing hope for real reform.  

        My campaign does not accept donations from corporate interest groups.  When I am elected to the U.S. Senate, I will do what’s right for my constituents — rather than worry about what’s profitable for my biggest contributors.  My loyalty to the people I represent will remain undivided.  That’s a good prescription for every member of Congress.

        2. the sentence where he talks about whether or not he would have been the sole Democrat out of 60 to vote no on this bill, please? I’m afraid I don’t see it in the copy and paste quote above.

          Thank you.  

          1. Would you have voted for the bill faced by Bennet? (technically, I suppose, to cut off debate on that bill.)

            No explanations, no qualifications.

            Just Yes or No.

            That’s the decision Bennet faced.  That’s the question Romanoff should answer.

            Yes

            or

            No.

              1. I just switched to the Democratic party last month, in time to go to a caucus but not in time to run for anything.  I mainly intend to work for Cary Kennedy, who I regard as one of the state’s brightest stars.


                  1. Reason and Sharon

                    are two ships that pass in the night, as far as I can tell.  With a minimum 10 degrees of latitude separating them.  As a fan of Andrew Romanoff, I’m thinking of putting a contract out on her so she’ll stop undercutting my preferred Senate candidate.

                    by: Voyageur @ Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 15:58:48 PM MST

                    If Voyageur likes Cary Kennedy (who doesn’t) he may avoid telling you anything about her.  

                    http://www.kennedyfortreasurer…

                  2. I worked with her when she was a staffer for Romanoff.  She knows state finances backwards and forward.   She led efforts, unsuccessful, I regret to say, to create a “rainy day fund” that would have helped Colorado tremendously in riding out the recession.  

                    At some point, no “vision” of Colorado’s future makes sense without a plan for restoring the state to solvency.  While I don’t personally want a big expansion of the state’s role, I do feel we desperately need to stabilise higher education and build a balanced transportation system for the 21st century economy.  Cary has been a leader in those efforts.

            3. As far as I can tell Andrew Romanoff gets it. He gets that the American people especially likely voters are fed up with corporations running the show and is willing to move in a different direction than Senator Bennet who is determined to represent the banks and Wall Street while ignoring the needs of Main Street.  

              We are in a much different place today than we were a year and a half ago. It’s my belief that politicans just don’t get how pissed off voters really are.  

              1. The tea baggers? Sure, they’re pissed off, by any government intervention at all.

                Here something every successful politician does get: No one person or faction who is certain they are right on controversial issues is the voice for “the voters” as a whole.

                Furthermore, responsible policy.makers who think systemically will inevitably take actions which seem to favor the wealthy, even on those occasions when such policies are the best of all options for the poor. That’s because it’s not a zero-sum game, and, to some extent, a rising tide does in fact raise all ships.

                Now, lately that has been the case less than in some previous periods: the fruits of economic expansions during the past few decades have been almost entirely captured by a small fraction of the most wealthy Americans while the rest have been left out in the cold. It’s true that there is no simple platitude which covers all contingencies, that it is necessary to examine and analyze the specific details of specific policies rather than assume a simple rule with universal application.

                But the economic meltdown did create one of those instances when attention to the viability of large economic players was a necessary evil. The specific policies can be debated, but the notion that by bailing out financial giants pliticians are, by definition, betraying ordinary Americans, is a false assumption.

                You can debate whether a particular vote on a particular proposal did or did not serve the interests of the American people. But being so quick to villify on the basis of such a shallow analysis is not the way to go.

        3. you delude yourself if you think Andrew would have been the only one of 60 Dems (and independent caucusing w/ Dems + Lieberman, whatever he is) voting against this.  

          It’s nice to believe in Fairy Tales, but some of us had to grow up.  

          1. What you fail to understand is that if AR had been appointed then Andrew would have made the whole process go differently, so differently in fact, that he would not have been forced to choose between a less than perfect bill or no bill at all.

            So asking Sharon how AR would have voted on the bill that Bennet ultimately had to vote for, with 59 others, is just silly.

          2. I was speaking with a constituent from Omaha, Nebraska yesterday at the ski resort and he told me Senator Ben Nelson will not win reelection. You are living in the past if you believe things haven’t changed.  With foreclosures and unemployment at record highs we are in for some anti incumbent sentiment. Do I have to provide the links from Democratic strategists that are telling us the way it will play out in 2010?

            1. “…provide the links from Democratic strategists that are telling us the way it will play out in 2010?”

              Please do.

              When you do please clarify whether Bennet counts as an incumbent or not. Seems like the pro-Romanoff crowd counts both ways.

              Also, if you have any sources that indicate that 2010 is going to be a tough year for D’s in general- not just incumbents (however defined) and that specifically predict a tough 2010  electoral cycle in for D’s in  Colorado post those too. Cause it’s what I’ve been typing since the summer.

            2. And tell us where in that blog article it says how Romanoff would have voted.

              Your response about speaking with a constituent from Omaha (you have constituents?) had nothing to do with a direct question that was asked by three different people.

              Short of an answer, I’ll just assume you made up the part about how Andrew would have voted, because it’s not in there.

            3. I think your N is too low.

              Besides Nelson is the sole D in an R delegation, and voting for HCR (in any form) is probably political suicide for him; he knows he’s done, but to get anything done for the next few years he can’t be a pariah in his own caucus.  HIS constituents aren’t critical of his HCR position because it isn’t liberal enough.

    2. I love it.  The R’s around here think this bill is the End Of Capitalism, and the latest sign of the coming apocalypse riding a trojan socialism horse.  And of course you think this bill is going to “destroy lives by bankrupting middleclass families” and will give “huge handouts to the insurance companies who will then increase your premiums to record levels never seen before.”

      So I guess only time will tell who is correct.   Either way this bill is going to destroy our lives, no doubt.  But which way are our lives going to be destroyed?  By too much socialism or not enough?  Oooh, I can’t wait to find out the answer on next week’s stunning episode of How the Lunatic Fringe Thinks.

      1. We certainly haven’t seen Sirota around here lately. Not convinced, though.  Sirota may be naive, self righteous and sophomoric but he isn’t stupid.  Unless dumbing down is part of his “Sharon” disguise…

      2. When and if the current version of the healthcare bill passes it will further enrage an already impoverished middleclass. It will wake up Americans to the control special interests have over our politicians especially Bennet.  That will be a good outcome and may drive the politicians in Washington to vote for their constituents and not their paymasters.  Comfortable and special interest funded incumbents will face challenges across the nation and here in Colorado. And that is why I support the hand out to the insurance companies in the form of the Senate healthcare bill.  

                1. Bite me.

                  The corn in my crap has more to do with what’s right with America than you do.

                  I don’t even think you care about politics.  You have a pathological urge to anonymously insult people that would hand you your ass if you talked to them in public the way you do here.

                  You can’t lead.  You can only complain, and that’s always the downfall of the far, far, far, far left.  

                  “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”  

                  by: Laughing Boy @ Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 21:38:58 PM MST

                    2. I accept your apology, and look forward to our next opportunity to thump chest–I’ll win that one too. If you haven’t noticed by now, I enjoy it.

                      Not changing the sig line though, at least not for awhile.

                  1. He just apologized. You are all about everybody being more decent to each other and new beginnings and learning how to accept responsibility when we say something cruel on the blogs…until somebody you have a beef with steps up and does just that.

                    Come on, Ray, I always thought you were better than this.

                    1. Bad ass Ray just might bring his Crips or Bloods, or whatever he calls his gang of havoc he threaten us with, in here to destroy us all.

                      “Furthermore, while it’s hard to argue that I’m not, in some sense, “bitching” about it, I’ve actually kind of bitched my way into a Zen-like appreciation of the beauty of the phenomenon I’m bitching about.” -Steve Harvey

        1. A few weeks ago a bunch of people started putting me in sig lines. Once I saw two people had LB in a sig line, I figured that was the hip new thing.

          Better change your signature before the fashion police come for ya.

          1. I’m in my sister-in-law’s house near the aquario right now: Not sure if I’m heading out to the palapa today, because it’s the second overcast day in a row. Maybe I’ll walk into town later, and have a stuffed-baked-potato or a taco. How about you? Still down here, or back up in wintry Denver?

            1. why go to Denver unless I am forced?

              We flew in and out of SLC, and got back Sunday evening…

              I looked for you at the Playa Norte restaurant near the Fisherman’s monument one day…not sure if that is where you sit.

              We had a fabulous time.  

              2. but the last palapa (palm-roofed bar-and-grill on the beach). Years ago, I used to eat at that restaurant quite a bit, as well. When I first moved down there, at the end of 1999, I lived for my first few months at Vidalmar Hotel (which had rooms with kitchens, and monthly rates, and a great view of the bay as well as sunrise over the city), which is right across form Ciencias del Mar (a little further down toward the base of Icebox Hill). Later, my wife-to-be and I moved to an apartment on NiГ±os Heroes in the historic center near Olas Altas (and then to a house on Covarubias, half a block from Olas Altas).

              1. Mientras Mazatlan tiene sus momentos, con una balaza, pico de cuchillo, o aun decapitacion de vez en cuando, lo mayoria de la violencia ocurre en los cerros y la Sierra. ВЎVoy a intentar “mantener mi cabeza,” como decimos en Los Estados Unidos!

    2. has been for a bill that could not have passed.

      Getting the votes required to get this flawed bill into conference meant giving up on single payer and the public option and giving in on other aspects and working to retain as much benefit as possible.  

      But the clear implication is that Sharon would prefer to get a “better bill” that could not have passed.

      Bennet was clearly in favor of a public option. I would have preferred that he come out for single payer the day he was sworn in, though I’m not at all sure he could have done that and had even a remote shot at re-election. Coloradoans aren’t that in favor of single payer.

      As it was, last Spring he came out in favor of the public option.  And, it turns out, was right in his assessment that about whether it could pass.

      Now imagine an alternative past where Bennet comes out for single payer, makes all the rational and informed economic arguments, votes for cramdown (though it still would not have passed)  and in Sep AR announces.

      Would we be hearing about how because MB overrached he made himself unelectable in the general?  

      What if he held out ala Lieberman, Nelson, Landrieu  and his holding out resulted in no bill at all? What if he said- it’s single payer or strong public option or nothing; let’s scrap this thing and start over?

      We’ll never know because instead he took the reasonable approach.  But I can guess.

      And I still don’t understand why Sharon thinks the NRSC excitement is a good thing.  The NRSC wants to elect Norton. They agree with you, Sharon, that Bennet voting for this less than perfect bill makes him weak.  Do you agree with them that a Norton win vs. Bennet in the general is a good thing?

      The NRSC also draws the bizarre conclusion that because Bennet did not follow Landrieu or Nelson or others and extract some special bonus for Colorado in exchange for his vote, there will be blowback. I believe Senator Bennet did a good job of explaining that and I also believe if he did hold out in exchange for some bonus or special concession for Colorado he would have guaranteed a R victory for his seat in 2010.

        1. Seriously, she strings together words and sentences made into paragraphs. She cuts & pastes some stuff. And it seems like that should express her idea (s) in a way that a careful reading would reveal that idea to me.  But I’m left guessing.  It’s not just that it lacks coherency. I just don’t get it. (Though I think I’m starting to.)

          And because I have expressed support for her candidate’s opposition, she doesn’t  take me seriously.  Though to be fair, my calling her a misinformed nut job may have something to do with that too.  But you gotta believe me when I tell ya I was smiling when I wrote typed that.

        2. are two ships that pass in the night, as far as I can tell.  With a minimum 10 degrees of latitude separating them.  As a fan of Andrew Romanoff, I’m thinking of putting a contract out on her so she’ll stop undercutting my preferred Senate candidate.

  3. Financial reform is FAILING.  When the WSJ points to how banking lobbyists have crushed any real regulation you know America has failed to pay attention to the causes and costs of the banking collapse.

    http://online.wsj.com/article_…

    If you hate the bailout, whether you believe it was needed or not, do something–anything.

    1. This is the number one threat to America.  Not terrorism, not energy, but the destructive influence of unabated usury and inflated paper tricks on our nation.  Dodd, Frank, McCain and others have proposals but yet no action.  As I said before, if there is not new regulation of the banking/securities sector and they are allowed once again to destroy our economy, the world as we now know it will not be the same world for generations to come.

      Nate Silver provided a good perspective, a couple of months ago, on what the political battle will shape up to be. from fivethirtyeight

      “From a 30,000-foot view, the debate will be between the Volckerists and the Summersists, with the Volckerists arguing that large financial institutions need to be broken up — probably through something resembling a modern Glass-Steagall Act — and the Summersists arguing instead for more extensive regulations.”

      But this absolutely needs to be done, sooner than later.  

      1. But everybody has got to get in the game, because the ones on the field right now are team Goldman and team JP Morgan.

        While I respect both of these organizations and they are full of smart people, their interests are not mine and they are not yours.

        This is a existential threat to this country and needs to be treated as such.

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

91 readers online now

Newsletter

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

Colorado Pols