Tuesday Open Thread

“Why ban guns? Let’s give everyone rocket launchers! What could possibly go wrong?”

Oliver Markus Malloy

31 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. davebarnes says:

    Where is the Denver Big Line?
    Lots of fun this Spring in the Queen City.

  2. JohnInDenver says:

    The Colorado Republican autopsy has begun. John Frank and Jesse Paul write in the Colorado Sun: Colorado Republicans, reeling from 2018 losses, wonder: Is it us or is it Trump?

    My favorite interesting observations from the Republicans:

    • “It’s tough to put lipstick on this pig,” GOP Chairman Jeff Hays told defeated supporters later on election night, after the numbers didn’t change.
    • “My opinion is that it’s a temporary symptom and we will bounce back,” said Senate President Kevin Grantham;
    • “There are relatively fewer and fewer Republicans one cycle to the next in a state that is growing one cycle to the next,” GOP operative Josh Penry said.
    • [Tyler] Sandberg. “If the party doesn’t very quickly shift their policy focus to get off the social wars and get back to issues where they have public support … we’re in permanent minority status, no matter how far Democrats overreach,” he argued.
    • Davie says:

      So you possess enough military grade weapons to hold off a fair sized army, and yet you live in constant fear of your shadow.  Must suck to be you!

      I’ll spare you the gory pictures and statistics of gun violence since you have made it very clear that you don’t give a damn, as long as it remains profitable.

      • Negev says:

        You have a U.S. Representative threatening nuclear retaliation against the population he is sworn to protect. Review the gory pictures and statistics of a nuclear blast and see if you spot the false virtue in your logic.

        It's assclowns like your buddy Swalwell that keeps the business profitable. 



        • RepealAndReplace says:

          And you actually believe that he was seriously advocating a nuclear strike against the gun nuts in this country?

          How exactly would that work? Would the military target a well-attended gun show in a Red State with a tactical nuclear device?

          You guys have got to stop watching Red Dawn.

        • Davie says:

          Tell me again why your leadership bans guns at your gatherings?  Oh right, because some doofus on meth is likely to pull a Barney Fife and accidentally start a firefight.

          • Negev says:

            Perhaps you should refer to your trusted source of Snopes for your answer, as it appears you find it reliable:


            It actually shows more truth in my Swalwell statement than your doofus rant…. you may want to step up your game



            • Voyageur says:

              Face it, Negev.  We're dinosaurs destined to be replaced with a more sociable race.  I can live with that.  Dinosaurs ruled this planet for 130 million years.  What Mark Twain caled the Damned Human Race is at most 50,000 years old.  With Trumpian style planetary destruction under way, we're very unlikely to last a thousand more.

            • Davie says:

              truth in my Swalwell statement

              Seriously, Negev? If you believe that angry perverted image you posted bears any resemblance to the congressman’s actual words, you might want to consider laying off sniffing gun cleaning solvents.  

              As I said, you are right to live in fear of your whack job associates.  Your lifestyle presents infinitely more opportunities for you to suffer gun violence than the average person.

    • Davie says:

      Negev — I found my gun nut to English dictionary and translated your post above.  This is the actual quote

      And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit. I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities.

      And you wonder why we question the wisdom of military style weapons in the hands of angry, fearful, mentally unstable men?


  3. gertie97 says:

    Does anybody know why Perlmutter is helping to lead the charge against Pelosi? How's that going to help him run against Gardner in two years? I can't figure it out. Anybody?

    • Colorado Pols says:

      This isn't new territory for Perlmutter. He backed Tim Ryan for Minority Leader in 2016.

    • JohnInDenver says:

      Perlmutter's stated rationale:

      "We have a lot of great, diverse candidates from all across the caucus who would be fantastic as our next speaker," he said. "I am grateful for Nancy Pelosi's leadership and many contributions to our caucus but I have advocated for a change in leadership since 2016 because I think it's time for a new perspective and someone who represents the change Americans just voted for across the country."

      "New Perspective" doesn't seem like it will be nominated for the post. Nor can the opponents nominate "No."  In the caucus, I don't think he'd be able to change the rules to require a supermajority of 218 or 2/3rds of those voting, so a 50% +1 majority will determine the Democratic caucus nominee.

      At the floor vote, he will be able to vote for Pelosi, the Republican nominee (probably Kevin McCarthy), or nominate someone yet to be identified and vote for that person. Or vote "Present," which he says he won't do.  Or step out of the room and not vote.

      If no one gets a majority, the House will vote again. And again, until there is a majority.  In 1923, it took 9 rounds of balloting. Pre-Civil War votes, went on longer than that. 

      Until there is a new Speaker, the existing Speaker continues. That could be interesting, as Paul Ryan did not run for re-election but has not officially resigned as Speaker. He could become the first non-member to be Speaker.


      • RepealAndReplace says:

        So maybe the 16 or so get to vote for Tim Ryan on the first ballot, Pelosi and McCarthy advance to second ballot and then everyone votes his or her party. Problem solved; those who promises to vote against Pelosi did so and tried to replace her. They only said they would vote against her. They did not guarantee success.

        • JohnInDenver says:

          There is nothing in the rules I've heard of that insures the field narrows in subsequent votes. This isn't a run-off, dropping the lowest ranking candidate.

          • RepealAndReplace says:

            No, but if this continues unbroken for several weeks, they may want to try that. Or they could spend the entire session voting on speaker. Like the 67 times they voted to repeal the ACA to no avail.

            More importantly, it gives cover to those who promised to vote against Pelosi. They can do it for the first couple of ballots, then announce that they tried to remove her but continuing to do so would be pointless.

    • Early Worm says:

      Two not mutually exclusive theories:

      1. He truly believes that there should be a new Speaker, even if it is not going to help him out in 2020.

      2. He is running for the general, not the primary. His simplest line of attack against Gardner is saying "Trump" until election day. Gardner will reflexively respond by saying "Pelosi." By campaigning against Pelosi, his provides some cover from that attack and possibly increases status with independents. 

    • ParkHill says:

      Matthew Iglesias at Vox has a good perspective: "House Democrats don’t need a leader, they need someone to represent them on TV"

      It is important to build up new leadership – not just for the speaker, but also for the other top posts. Pelosi's strength is her network and ability to fundraise and get things done. Her weakness is in not presenting Democratic positions well to the public. 

      Training up new leadership is something for the next two years, not the next month.

      • Early Worm says:

        Interesting column, but I cringe when he suggests DeGette as a possible "someone to represent [Democrats] on TV." 

      • gertie97 says:

        How superficial! The public wants shit done. They don't give a rat’s ass how Congress rearranges its chairs. Pelosi gets stuff done, raised stunning amounts of money and engineered the best Democratic House election performance since Watergate.

        The GOP will demonize whoever is the “face'' of the Democrats.

        So we shove the old broad who does the work into the background for a shiny and younger new face on television?

        • DENependent says:

          The public does not want things done. If the public wanted shit done they would have voted for Clinton by more than a plurality. The public wants to play X-box and not pay taxes while participating in the 2 minutes of hate against the other side on Facebook.

          The sad truth is that Democrats could present a perfect plan that would fix everything and 53% of the public would be against it because scary ads told them it would give their dog autism.

        • MADCO says:

          GSD requires electoral wins.
          Ds should want a  speaker who will best motivate key voting demos in 2020.

          If Minority Leader Pelosi is it – great.
          I remain skeptical – she should spend next year GSD and grooming her handpicked successor who will appeal to key demos and then a year fomr now she should step back and watch her party win big in 2020.

  4. Another election, another canvass board meeting. After counting 500 of Colorado's indescribably brief ballots (a veritable Tweet-sized treat at 37-38 questions in Gilpin County), I will re-iterate for the audience: the machine is right, the hand-count is wrong. Always.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

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