CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese



President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*


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

(D) Joe Neguse*


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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks




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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg




CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Dave Williams



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*


CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen



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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi




State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
July 14, 2010 03:45 PM UTC

Wednesday Open Thread

  • by: Colorado Pols

“He knows nothing; he thinks he knows everything – that clearly points to a political career.”

–George Bernard Shaw


143 thoughts on “Wednesday Open Thread

  1. Hehehehehehehe…..

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi bashed White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs Tuesday night, even as the president’s top spokesman continued to backpedal from his assertion that Democrats could lose control of the House in the November election.

    The fusillade from Pelosi and other Democrats at a closed-door meeting escalated an already fiery clash between the White House and its own party in Congress. During the tense evening meeting, the speaker grilled the top White House aide in attendance, senior legislative affairs staffer Dan Turton, about the impact of Gibbs’ comments.

    “How could [Gibbs] know what is going on in our districts?” Pelosi told her members in the caucus meeting in the basement of the Capitol Tuesday night.

    1. http://www.washingtonexaminer….

      Democrats Assert Job Growth Using J-I-T Logistics Business Concept

      WASHINGTON-The White House asserted Wednesday that the $862 billion stimulus law has been even better for the economically-struggling country than previously advertised.

      Updating its estimate of the impact the controversial new law has had, the White House now projects that the vast spending act has created or saved between 2.5 million and 3.6 million jobs.

      That’s up from the estimate of 2.2 million to 2.8 million jobs that was released in the first quarter of the year from the White House Council of Economic Advisers. The new estimate says the act is on track, if it hasn’t already reached, the promise that the stimulus act would save or create 3.5 million jobs by the end of 2010.

  2. Storm over possible plagiarism in McInnis writings escalates

    A new example of possible plagiarism by Scott McInnis surfaced Tuesday as the Republican gubernatorial candidate faced calls to repay $300,000 he received for plagiarized essays on water that he submitted as “original works.”

    A Denver Post review of McInnis’ floor speeches and columns published during his congressional career found striking similarities between a 1995 speech and 1994 column by McInnis and a previously published Op-Ed in The Washington Post.

    or, to paraphrase the Senator from Minnesota, the lying liars and the lies they tell, from the Party that supports the lies the lying liars tell….

    1. a poll there regarding whether it’s an issue or not (with four answers to choose from) has 80% of respondents saying yes, this is an issue.

      If I were Dan Maes, I’d make sure to use Scooter’s “it’s not an issue” phrase prominently in my ads.

      1. Page 2, 3rd section (of 4).

        Small type leader on page 1 of 3rd section: “McInnis Apologizes for Plagiarism” (or something similar. Short AP story inside.

        But, the Camera always puts politics inside the middle section. Apparently, they’ve ceded politics to television and new media.

  3. It’s nice to get a fair 3rd party perspective. This is from Volcanic Ash which is the main political blog in Hawaii.

    I found it telling that people with loyalties to the different campaigns suggested  I check out these interviews. They all thought their guys came across well, and they mostly did.

    And of course the usual complaint that I’m a bit too gentle 🙂

    Thielen can be a little wide-eyed, but if you don’t like his summaries of the interviews, he provides links to the recordings so you can listen to the candidates for yourself.

  4. Local newspaper (not sure if I can cite or give link to) has over 80% (as of 7:35 this morning) of respondents saying he should drop out of race in an online poll.

    If he’s doing this bad in Colorado Springs, he better get out the peanut butter and jelly, because he’s toast.

    Maybe, someday, I hope, my fellow republicans can have a true leader run for Governor.

  5. who want to run with McFinished got vry small yesterday. And yet, maybe the most positive thing he could do now is make that announcement.

    Clearly, Coffman is the only bright spot on the GOP bench.

  6. From StackOverflow – has a ton of good ones including:

    The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not ‘Eureka!’ but ‘That’s funny…’ – Issac Asimov

    Engineers are all basically high-functioning autistics who have no idea how normal people do stuff. – Cory Doctorow

  7. Here’s the headline:

    “Poll: Support for Arizona Immigration Law Hits 57 Percent”

    Here’s the graph:

    Ah – the network of “Fake but accurate” comes through in the clutch.

      1. Comparing a law that merely enforces Federal law because the Feds won’t do it is akin to slavery?

        I’d expect that out of Froward but not you.

        1. The AZ law does no such thing as you so quaintly put it–” merely enforces Federal law.”

          Sometimes public opinion isn’t always right. Sometimes it needs to catch up to moral and ethical reality.

          I’d expect a comment like yours from Libertad but not from you.  

          1. Didn’t holder file his suit based on profiling?

            All he said was that the Feds have pre-eminent jurisdiction over local authorities when it comes to enforcing immigration law.

  8. On the occasion of Steinbrenner’s death:

    “that cracker made a lot of African-Americans millionaires,” and, “at the same time, he fired a lot of white guys.”

    Gee and here I thought it was the Hispanics who were the biggest factor in the MLB these days.  Is Rush confused or does he just hate to pass up a chance to dis African-Americans?

    Will any GOP pol dare ever so gently to suggest that this was perhaps a slightly, just a tad, unfortunate statement or even  just a teensy bit tasteless?  We probably shouldn’t hold our breath

        1. Limbaugh is often taken out of context.  Let’s see what he was talking about in its entirety.

          The New Black Panthers thing really is a big deal.  It was verified voter intimidation, with a number of witnesses (Dems included) that gave damning testimony.

          The jackass with the weapon, right in front of the door where people were supposed to vote had an injunction levied on him to never allow him at polling places again.  Holder reduced the injunction.

          1. …I mean, it was open carry. What’s the dif between him showing up at a polling place than a bunch of crazied Teabaggers showing up at political rallies with their weapons?


              1. If you’re CLAIMING Limbaugh was quoted “out of context,” why don’t you back up that rather ridiculous claim with additional passages?

              2. Phil Jones, who wrote the quote you’ve appropriated, was pissed off that discredited papers were going to be discussed in the IPCC report. Those paper had no place in a summary document intended to reflect the scientific consensus.  

                The authors had gamed the peer review process, by publishing in the journal Climate Research, where it was possible to find a single sympathetic editor, who chose unqualified reviewers, in order to get the papers into print. After this transgression, half the editorial board resigned.

                However, it should be noted that the discredited papers were discussed and cited in the IPCC report.

                Here are a couple of refs:




      1. Like all GOP pols, instead of ever addressing a Rush statement you just revert to the old “But, Mo-aa-om, Johnny did something worse” none response.

        The only context I can imagine in which Rush’s words wouldn’t mean exactly what it looks like they mean would be “…If I were a total idiot and bigot I might say…”  But please post better context for us.

        As for context on the Black Panther story:

        Fox News aggressively promoting spurious allegations against DOJ. Taking a cue from right-wing blogs and The Washington Times, Fox News has spent the past week aggressively promoting allegations that the Obama Justice Department dropped voter intimidation charges against the New Black Panther Party due to racial considerations.

        The charges are being leveled by J. Christian Adams, a GOP activist and former DOJ attorney who was hired to the Bush DOJ by Bradley Schlozman, a political appointee who was ultimately found to have improperly politicized DOJ hiring. Adams admits to lacking firsthand knowledge of some of the events, conversations, and decisions that he cites to advance his accusations. Also, Adams’ allegations are undermined by the fact that the decision to not pursue criminal charges against the New Black Panthers was made by the Bush-era DOJ (my emphasis)(for which Adams worked); further, the Obama DOJ obtained judgment against one of the defendants.

        Despite holes in story, other media outlets follow Fox News’ lead. In a July 1 article, the Associated Press also advanced Adams’ story, with a report largely based on claims Adam made on “Fox News earlier.” Adams is identified as “a former Justice Department lawyer” who “is accusing his ex-superiors of ignoring white voters’ rights and creating a systematic ‘one-way’ approach in which only minorities are protected.” On July 7, CNN hosted Adams to rehash his unsubstantiated accusations, referring to the discredited GOP activist as a “whistleblower.” On July 8, CNN covered the story on multiple programs, with segments on the allegations on CNN Newsroom and Campbell Brown

          1. Since you don’t like my source, use the google with “decision to not pursue criminal charges against the New Black Panthers was made by the Bush-era DOJ”.  You’ll find more. Maybe just reading this little bit here won’t be too painful:

            Adams admits to lacking firsthand knowledge of some of the events, conversations, and decisions that he cites to advance his accusations. Also, Adams’ allegations are undermined by the fact that the decision to not pursue criminal charges against the New Black Panthers was made by the Bush-era DOJ.

            And this:

            the Obama DOJ obtained judgment against one of the defendants.

            Your turn. Let’s see the context that make Rush’s remarks all good. Put up or shut up.

            1. Posted in full.

              The only thing I can remember the media and the left ever saying about Steinbrenner is that he was an evil, temperamental dictator who made illegal campaign contributions to Richard Nixon and consorted with hoodlums

              Here’s how bad things are for the left:  The best they have is to pretend they are offended by my clever compliments about a fellow successful capitalist—- who has been portrayed negatively by the left until now— and are insanely obsessed with the sale of my NY condo— sold at a profit when home sales are supposed to be a sign of a recovering economy.

              This is my stock in trade: Illustrating the absurd by being absurd. Two weeks ago, a DOJ whistleblower revealed that the Obama/Holder Department of Justice ordered line attorneys to drop a 2008 voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia. The line attorney, J. Christian Adams, said the case was a slam dunk. And we knew it was: there was video evidence.

              In the past two weeks, the President of the NBPP, Malik Zulu Shabazz, has been in the media attacking white crackers. One of the NBPP members from the Philly incident, King Samir Shabazz, appeared at a rally and suggested  that blacks would only be free when all the crackers were dead and further said that killing cracker babies was called for. No one in what is called the mainstream media has condemned or even reported any of this, though it has  been all over Fox News and talk radio and many internet blogs.

              So…George Steinbrenner dies and I, being absurd to illustrate absurdity, make my comments, pointing out that this cracker created many African American MILLIONAIRES (and fired a bunch of white managers) to establish HIS CRED!!!

              To top it off, and to provoke liberals even more, I said that Steinbrenner was such a great capitalist he even knew when to die. This year, a year in which there is ZERO estate tax. So his family will not have to sell the New York Yankees to pay what will be a 55% tax starting in January.

              Simple to understand and even appreciate IF…IF….IF….one listens to my show. Media Matters for America does listen but they purposely distort the things I say and the reporters who then quote MM, and do not ever listen to my show, print the erroneous take.

              1. Cracker making African Americans millionaires while firing whites.  The only context is that he’s pleased as punch when anything he says pisses off liberals and we already know that. Thanks, LB, for proving that context makes absolutely no difference. Thanks for proving two points for me today.  But don’t expect any pay-offs. Do I look like foundation?

                The Panther stuff and the estate tax break stuff aren’t relevant to the statement I accurately quoted.  I didn’t claim nobody ever said anything as bad or worse.  That’s your side’s go-to excuse for anything and everything, not mine. The estate thing is only relevant if you wish to call for an investigation into the exact circumstances of the Steinbrenner death, not the subject I addressed.

                Must say, though, I’m glad I’m not old, sick and rich this year. Expect to run across some juicy stories in months to come. Thanks again,LB

                1. This is my stock in trade: Illustrating the absurd by being absurd.

                  I missed the outrage at Shabazz’ use of the word “cracker” (and worse) from the left.

          2. Media Matters is left wing, but I know of no instance where they countered a biased story with undue bias of their own. They typically report the ignored facts.

              1. I know that they balance out stories from the right wing to benefit the left wing exclusively, but that doesn’t mean that they are making up or distorting anything – at least I haven’t seen any claims that they have from sources I would consider impartial.

                I’m sure much the same could be said of the MRC, but I really don’t know much about them.

              2. Scared to find out that, in fact, the decision not to pursue criminal charges against the New Black Panthers was made by the Bush-era DOJ and that, in fact, the Obama DOJ obtained judgment against one of the defendants? Your “put up” on Rush was lame.  Maybe on this one your best choice is to “shut up”.  

                1. Then why is the DOJ failing to cooperate fully with the civil rights commission and their investigation?

                  Why was the injunction made to only last until 2012 when initially he’d been handed a lifetime ban from polling paces?

                  You also never answered my question.

                  Do you think these men participated in voter intimidation?  Your opinion.

                  1. I don’t recall, even during the height of all the 2000 and 2004 voter intimidation on the part of Republicans, some of whom were convicted, ever saying that nobody but Republicans commits voter fraud or engages in intimidation. I’m not comparing one side to the other or Rush’s comments to anyone else’s.  

                    As I said, the Johnny did somethig as bad or worse argument is the favored style on the right.  It has never been my style. If, for instance, a Dem (like Edwards) proves to be a douche, I say he’s a douche.  I don’t use the douchiness of Rs as a refutaion of a Dem’s douchiness.  

                    If you don’t have a comment about my Rush quote that doesn’t require the lameness of bringing in somebody else doing something just as bad or worse, you must have nothing, or at least nothing you care to concede.  

                    Your turn.  Show me how my statements on whose DOJ did what are factually incorrect.  

                    1. But incomplete.  The judgement against asshat Shabazz was lowered from a lifetime ban until just 2012.


                    2. the following are true,  (and who ever said the facts we offer here about anything are complete. I’m sure neither one of us knows the complete history and all relevant records concerning the whole matter) and I love getting you to admit stuff…

                      1) the decision not to pursue criminal charges against the New Black Panthers was made by the Bush-era DOJ  

                      2)The Obama DOJ obtained judgment against one of the defendants

                      Then why does this show anything special or peculiar to the Obama DOJ? Why aren’t you accusing your sources of incompleteness for leaving these facts out?

                      This proves we all select facts to back up our views. Shocking!  However it has nothing to do with Rush carrying on about a Cracker making African Americans millionaires while firing whites other than as one of two excuses Rush posed for why saying such things is fine, the other excuse being that he likes to annoy liberals.  

                      If you have nothing to say about those comments without reference to Rush’s own lame Johnny did something worse and liberals suck explanation then you either have nothing relevant to say about the quote that started this whole thing or you, like everyone else on the right, will never admit that Rush could possibly say anything even ever so slightly questionable for love or money.  

                    3. A lifetime ban of brining weapons to a polling place for someone who did it to intimidate people is “a bit much”?

                    4. the right to bear arms and against any inconvenient background checks. Never mind. Once again what does it have to do with your opinion of what Rush Limbaugh said about crackers, African Americans and white guys? Please answer this question bearing in mind that the douchiness of X can neither be proved or disproved by the douchiness of Y.  Just because Rush conflates his comments with totally non-related issues like this one does not demonostrate a relevant connection.  

                      As for the Shabbaz stuff you and Rush insist has something to do with his hateful remarks on African American millionaires and poor fired white guys, if you are exercised about lack of attention to Shabazz or to the facts I presented and you accepted, you ought to be equally exercised about all those who presented other facts but left out mine. Still, none of that is germane to whether or not what Rush said was offensive.

                    5. To point out the ridiculousness of the left not batting an eye at this Shabazz clown.

                    6. Rush’s explanation of what he said and why.  But, leaving aside the question of whether using a man’s death as an opportunity for a parody political attack before the body is cold is in the best taste, at least I got you to finally make a comment on what Rush said rather than on what that awful liberal Johnny said or failed to say or did or failed to do. And that’s really hard!

                      I also got you to prove two of my points, admit that my facts were correct (though, I know, incomplete) and to speak to a point instead diverting to something else.  All in all, not bad for a days work.  This is me patting myself on the back.  Now I’m going out to have some fun. Ta ta, LB, you rascal.

                    7. And reply to an old post after you’re gone, but I think it’s you that missed the point.

                      What Rush said isn’t repugnant.  He said it to make fun of libs that seem to have no problem with assholes carrying batons at polling places and calling for the deaths of “crackers” and their babies.

                      Anyway, I’m off too.  Good day today – nice dialogue with you.

                    8. I always wanted to be a verb. (I was kinda hoping it would mean something more like “to inspire” or “to enlighten,” but beggars can’t be choosers…). 🙂

                    9. Bill, Buck, Bet, Barb, Dolly, Don, Frank, Harry, Jack, Jimmy, Mark, Mar(r)y, Nick, Ralph, Will, and, as long as there are two of them, Walt(z).


                      The Judgment was entered “in accordance with the attached Order,” which included the November 15 date.  The date itself was not included in the Judgment, but since the Judgment was in accordance with the Order, the date that the court’s jurisdiction would end was incorporated in the Judgment.

                      That’s my assumption, anyway; I couldn’t find any record of there being an Order for perpetual injunction that was later changed to November 2012. I can’t imagine that a court would retain perpetual jurisdiction over a case anyway.  If Mr. Shabazz or anyone else engages in voter intimidation after November 15, 2012, he gets charged again.

          3. The DOJ investigated charges against 4 defendants.  Thomas Perez, the head of the civil rights division, testified that DOJ determined that the evidence did not support criminal charges, so they downgraded the complaint to a civil action on January 7, 2009, before Obama was inaugurated.

            The four defendants were the New Black Panther Party (NWPP), Samir Shabazz, Malik Shabazz, and Jerry Jackson.  DOJ dropped the charges against all but Samir Shabazz, because:

            Jerry Jackson was a certified poll watcher.  When the Philadelphia police came to the polling place, they ordered Samir Shabazz to leave but allowed Jackson to remain.  The DOJ concluded that the contemporaneous police response and subsequent evidence showed there was not sufficient evidentiary support for the charges against Jackson.

            Malik Shabazz and the NWPP were charged with announcing, managing, and directing intimidating activities at the polls.  However, the announcements did not call for any party member to display weapons or engage in voter intimidation, and there was no evidentiary support for the allegations that NWPP or Malik Shabazz managed or directed any such activities.

            The District Court found that Samir Shabazz “stood in front of [a polling place], wearing a military-style uniform, wielding a nightstick, and making intimidating statements and gestures to various individuals….”  The court entered an injunction prohibiting Shabazz from engaging in such behavior.

            The DOJ attorney who decided to drop the charges against NWPP, Jackson, and Malik Shabazz was the Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, a nearly 30-year employee of DOJ.  Nearly 30 years ago = Reagan administration appointment.

            There are also allegations that a DOJ employee named Julie Fernandez said, “Never bring another lawsuit against a black or other national minority, apparently no matter what they do.”  However, Fernandez was employed by a private PR firm until June 2009, and wasn’t with DOJ when the NWPP charges were downgraded.  The only person who has alleged that Fernandez made this statement is J. Christian Adams, a former DOJ employee who was hired when the Bush administration was purging DOJ of career civil rights attorneys and replacing them with right-wing activists. No other DOJ employees have corroborated his statement, as far as I could find.

            DOJ letter explaining the charging decisions: http://republicans.judiciary.h

            More detail on the facts and circumstances of the case:



            And about J. Christian Adams:  http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c


              1. I retired from the practice of law two years ago, though, and forgot until today how verbose and boring lawyers are.  I guess one never retires from verbosity and dullness.

        1. Do you think the gentlemen involved were guilty of intimidating voters?

          Here’s a link to an Inquirer story…

          Here’s how a Justice Department complaint filed in January 2009 described those events:

          Samir Shabazz, head of the Philadelphia chapter of the New Black Panther Party, and party member Jerry Jackson were “deployed” in front of a Fairmount Avenue polling place in “military style uniforms.”

          Shabazz brandished a nightstick. He “pointed the weapon at individuals, menacingly tapped it [in] his other hand, or menacingly tapped it elsewhere.” Both Shabazz and Jackson leveled “racial threats and racial insults at both black and white individuals,” and they “made menacing and intimidating gestures, statements, and movements directed at individuals who were present to aid voters.”

          The two men, the party, and its national chairman were named in the complaint. Since none responded, the case was all but won.

          However, in May 2009, the Justice Department dropped claims against all but Shabazz, who was merely ordered not to take a weapon to a Philadelphia polling place through 2012.

          Why would Holder reduce the civil injunction for Shabazz?

          1. Now they always get everything right.  And yes I know about Edwards but they also have had Bush divorcing Laura over Condi for years. Pretty laughable to refuse to read anyting from Media Matters which has a very good record of not making facts up and trusting in the paper that gives us stories such as Peewee Herman’s Face Found on the Moon.

            Once again you’re welcome to research the following.  I won’t bother to ask you to trust Media Matters if you don’t demand I accept Inquirer stories as necessarily solid as a rock with no further investigation but I bet you know how to look stuff up on the old internet tubes:

            1) the decision not to pursue criminal charges against the New Black Panthers was made by the Bush-era DOJ  

            2)The Obama DOJ obtained judgment against one of the defendants.

            1. It’s the Philadelphia Inquirer.

              Not the National Enquirer.

              I’ll continue to ask your opinion, yes or no, do you believe those men engaged in voter intimidation?

              1. But my offer stands.  I found my statements on whose DOJ did what at several different sources and since you chose to refuse to read the link I provided I admit, that colored my willingness to jump to the  National Inquirer conclusion and twit you about it but it also makes me unwilling to do your work for you.  Who knows?  I might give you several links and you could continue to insult them and refuse to look. That’s why I keep suggesting you fact check my facts on your own.

  9. I saw that you made a response to one of my comments but it got deleted along with everything under bj’s video posting. Can you repost? Thx.

    1. Tapper has some great background on it.

      In a May 9, 2010 letter to the Attorney General, Commission Chairman Gerald A. Reynolds expressed his displeasure with delays from the Justice Department in the inquiry asserting, “The Department has repeatedly delayed the production of critical documents and information. When it has provided information, the Department appears to have done so only to maintain the appearance of cooperation and has timed its production of voluminous, but largely non-responsive documents to prevent adequate review by the Commission before critical junctures in the Commission’s scheduled proceedings. It has further refused outright to provide answers and documents to some of the Commission’s most critical questions and requests, and has refused to permit its employees with substantive knowledge of this case to cooperate with the Commission’s subpoenas.

  10. I saw that you made a response to one of my comments but it got deleted along with everything under bj’s video posting. Can you repost? Thx.

    1. because while there are plenty of indications of at least occasional racism in the Tea Party movement, it’s never been clear how widespread or deep it is, and, more importantly, I don’t think it’s helping the cause of reason and goodwill to provide this coveted distraction from the more pervasive defects of the Tea Party movement. But the “argument” presented in this video is 100% worthless. It means absolutely nothing.

      The testimonials in the video are of course consistent with a complete lack of racism in the Tea Party movement, but they are equally consistent with the presence of racism in the Tea Party movement, since in every historical instance of institutionalized racism (including antebellum slavery in the United States), there have been members of the victimized group ready and willing to defend the institution. The reasons for this are, in fact, that race determines nothing, not even personal views in the face of racism, and so, when dealing with millions of people, some will inevitably be attracted to positions that reason would seem to militate against. Once again you make the innumerate error of alleging that an insignificant N has statistical validity.

      It’s a ploy that has been used for as long as there has been racism and discrimination in the world; find those statistically inevitable members of the persecuted, or enslaved, or reviled group who, for whatever reasons, identify with those who persecute, enslave, or revile the generalized membership of that group, and trot them out as proof that no persecution or ill-will exists, or that slavery is really in their own best interest. There were German Jewish apologists for Nazism in the 1930s; there were southern black slave apologists for southern black slavery, and later southern black apologists for Jim Crow; it’s as constant as the history of racism itself.

      So, no, your video demonstrates only the ignorance of those who think it demonstrates something.

        1. Yes, accusations of racism are easy to make, and collective beliefs that serve some agenda are easy to cultivate. But you posted what you considered a definitive proof that the Tea Party is not infused with racism, and I pointed out that your definitive proof proves absolutely nothing. Period. I made no argument about whether racism does or does not characterize the Tea Party movement, or whether the accusations are or are not well justified. So why does your reply then go in a completely new and irrelevant direction (failing completely either to defend your original claim, or debunk my refutation of it)?

          Answer: Because you’re not engaged in discourse or debate, just a silly little partisan tap dance, one that involves mostly tripping over yourself, and then managing to shut out the guffaws of the audience in favor of the imagined applause you’d prefer to hear.

          1. umpteen times per day by the left, which has no clue what the Tea Party stands for. I was hoping this video might clear things up, but apparently not. You’re as bigoted as ever.

            1. So pointing out your reliance on a logical fallacy, without ever making any accusations of racism or condoning others making them, makes me a bigot. Well, that’s quite a capacious (and convenient) definition you have there!

              1. What have I ever said that was racist? This is what I am referring to about being called a racist umpteen times a day. I just posted a link standing up for black conservatives who are oppressed by today’s liberal plantation establishment.

  11. I hate to give artillery to the metaphoric enemy, but how freaking badly could two guys self-destruct?

    Now, that said, I’m absolutely not inferring that McInnis is anything like the wretched coward it looks like Gibson is, just in their coincidental meteoric downfalls in the last couple of weeks.

      1. He’s done, too.  This is a big mess this year.

        Do you think McInnis will stay in the race?

        On another note, did you see there are even more and worse tapes coming out featuring Mad Mel?

        Holy cow, what a tailspin.

        I almost find it hard to believe this guy could have been so horrible for so long without people knowing about it.

        1. Or, more precisely, Dan Caplis said he got a note from the McInnis camp saying that he was staying in. I think he’ll hang around till his poll numbers go south, at which point it will probably be too late. Maybe he can be pressured to drop out of the general election and we can get a replacement?

          Pretty sad about Mel. I don’t see how that guy could have ever made The Passion of the Christ.

          1. In the same way that too many people claiming to follow Christ are devout, Mel was a true believer in his ultra-conservative Catholic faith.

            Having a strong religion doesn’t make you immune from being a complete ass, though.  History is littered with devout people rolling in the sins of their religion.

            1. Being devout in your religion predicts violence toward women?

              No wonder the Pope never gets any dates.

              Come on, Steve.  You pulled that straight out of your ass.

              1. What I said is that dogmatic fanatics are rarely noble, and, regardless of where I pulled it from, it doth smell as sweet. Seriously, I think it’s true: Dogmatic fanatics have impossibly rigid views of reality, that are constantly confronted by the complexities and subtleties that such views fail to embrace. Those rigid views come with impossible expectations of how others should behave, expectations that are constantly being disappointed. The strength of the false certainties held by dogmatic fanatics make such disappointments intolerable (which is why they are generally so intolerant). Anger, outrage, and sometimes a generalized condemnation of all who fail to be as holy as they are follows. This is a soup both comrised of, and conducive to, violence.

                The fanatical views don’t cause the violence, so much as they are symptomatic of a personality inclined toward violence. Are there exceptions? Sure. There are people who have incredibly strong, rigid beliefs, but for whom it is a vehicle for their character strengths rather than their character weaknesses. Such people are simply far outnumbered by their counterparts, for whom strong rigid beliefs are a vehicle for their character weakenesses rather than their character strengths.

                Merely being devout in one’s beliefs, without being a dogmatic fanatic, has a far higher balance of those who use it as a vehicle for their character strengths rather than their character weaknesses. That’s because the more flexible and tolerant one is, the more their psyches bend in the wind rather than break.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

76 readers online now


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