CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%↑

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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

50%↑

15%

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Dave Williams

60%↑

40%↓

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

40%↑

20%↓

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
August 03, 2010 03:45 PM UTC

Tuesday Open Thread

  • 160 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“Opinion is the medium between knowledge and ignorance.”

–Plato

Comments

160 thoughts on “Tuesday Open Thread

  1. Boy, this was a sad piece to read: http://www.sfreporter.com/sant

    Some thoughts from within:

    1. The Gini index shows that in the 1970’s our income equality was like that of Japan or Israel today.  Today, our index puts us with the Phillipines and Rwanda.

    2. As the Gini goes down, more and more effort is expended by, let’s use the phrase, ruling class to keep the not-ruling class compliant and orderly.  This requires more and more policing – both official police and unofficial, right down to the corporate IT snoop.  

    3. GDP spent on these efforts is non-productive.  Like making armaments, I will equate to.  These men and women checking ID’s and in the gated community guard house are NOT starting new companies, finding the proverbial cure for cancer, or building infrastructure.  They are siphoned off of economic potential to serfdom.

    There’s a whole lot more, but those are the conclusions of economist Samual Bowes who has been studying inequality since 1968, when asked to do so by Dr. King shortly before his assassination.  

    1. But I’ve been content to move my little lead miniatures around on the table instead.

      What a waste. What a tribute to fear. Are the bad guys winning?

    2. Take their wealth and increase government spending, but do plan to scrape off 20% for the first 10 years as you provide the “new jobless” unemployment benefits and “job training” for their new government sponsored positions.

      And while your at it plan for a large and sustainable reduction in tax receipts from the wealthy followed up by a much lower GDP.

      http://online.wsj.com/article/

      Like fleas to a dog your awkward principles will inflate poverty and unemployment.

      1. we tax the wealthy at a slightly higher rate so we can pay down the debt racked up in large part because we lowered their tax rates and gave them many tax loopholes over the past decade through which they’ve been able to disproportionately increase their wealth at the expense of the middle and lower classes?

        We can use some of that tax to fund immediate stimulus spending so those wealthy people will once again begin earning wealth because their companies are once again selling goods to the working classes (who drive the economy and are having a hard time with cash right now thanks to a combination of factors largely caused by huge corporations).  Stimulus is a short-term solution, but it must be sufficient to re-ignite the economy or it will be (a) wasted money and (b) not enough to return our economy to health.

        In the meantime, we find money-saving options like single payer or the public option, reductions in wasteful Defense spending, simplification of the intelligence infrastructure, reduction of dependence on overseas energy supplies (reduces defense and intelligence spending as a side-effect)…

        The wealthiest people in this country benefited over the past decade from the lowest tax rates since before the Great Depression, while the nation racked up debt.  They did not pay their way, and it’s time someone owned up to that fact and fixed it.

              1. It’s the idiot with the orange tint in the House (and his lockstep followers) and the funny-lookin’ one from Kentucky in the Senate (and his lockstep followers).

                It’s odd – one of the major parties actually have disagreements with one another.  The other one is so narrow-minded, they almost never miss a step in perfect rhythm with their leader.

                And unfortunately, given the current rules, the close-minded party marching lockstep, although they’re in the minority still get to control the Senate agenda.

                They’ve been so lockstep that they’ve managed to block 58% of President Obama’s judicial nominations.  (You know, nominations which according to those same single-minded politicians were supposed to be given full deference to the President’s decisions only two years ago…)

      2. you would find out that productivity goes UP as these people are put into, well, productive uses.

        When productivity and employment go UP, there is…….are you ready for this?….LESS unemployment.

        Just saw an item in the Financial Times how that socialist pinko commie welfare state Sweden is having an export boom.  

        No great wealth, no great poverty, no “guard class” to speak of.

        Let’s try empiricism instead of ideology, OK? Everything you predict is 100% incorrect.

        Right…………

    1. …and might you then be able to finally tie him to financing 60-61-101?

      I forget if the Gazette is on the embargoed list, if it is then CPols can edit this posting … most noteworthy is this financial assault on the opponants of 60, 61 & 101.

      Wealthy Pueblo family supporting ballot initiatives

      July 31, 2010 4:52 PM

      EILEEN WELSOME

      THE GAZETTE

      Members of a wealthy Pueblo family have given $10,000 of the roughly $12,000 in campaign contributions received by CO Tax Reforms, a political-issue committee that supports three ballot issues that would reduce taxes and limit government borrowing.

      Read more: http://www.gazette.com/article

      Does M. Ali “Yankee Doddle Dandy” Hasan have an opinion? Will he lobby his family to stop all personal and HFF financing that supports 6-61-101? Can he bring that commitment to CPols? Can he announce it here first?

  2. Dave Barry interviews Governor Bob Graham

    BARRY: Ray wants to know what you’re going to do to lower taxes, and I don’t think he’s talking about everyone here. I think he’s talking about Ray’s taxes.

    GRAHAM: We’re going to raise Dave’s taxes, so he can pay more of yours, Ray. I mean, you can see that Dave can certainly afford it. Look, he comes here with this chi-chi Swiss-Italian suit…

  3. The article is in the Denver Something and it’s listing of the burn rate, total spend, and financial position of the Bennet campaign is not pretty.

    It’s like the old saying in Hollywood, they may have spent a lot of money but you don’t see it up on the screen.

        1. You are free to link to whatever you want. We ask that direct quotes from the newspapers involved in our recent legal issue not be used in comments or diaries. We have said that diaries containing such direct quotes will not be promoted, and diaries linking to those papers–with or without quotes–are much less likely to be.

          To the extent that our community voluntarily refrains from using those newspapers as sources, or seeks out alternatives for the information they need, we do appreciate this.

    1. he still has $1.7 million banked to use in the general. He has burned through his primary $$$.

      So no, technically, he’s not out of money by a long shot but $1.7 million won’t be of much use to him if he loses the primary, thus the loan to get him to August 10th.

    2. Some might say he’s got $11 million left over, but that is wrong.

      After his paydays he was left with something nearer $6 million post tax.

      He then went on to invest in real estate so his wife and family would have shelter, did some structured estate planning, gave to charity, and watched the vast majority of his retirement portfolio crater with the markets.

      He was forced to live off of the following approximate salaries: $150k Mayoral Chief of Staff, $280k DPS Super, and $180k U.S. Senate. Granted these governments made him work his ass off, but they did pick up the vast majority of spousa;l travel while leaving him stuck with nanny fees while he and the Mrs. made the rounds.

  4. …and it’s Tuesday, so, here goes:

    Bogus wingnut scandals of the future

    (There will be a scandal about something really stupid. Trust me..)

      1. Obama didn’t throw this man under the bus … he jumped in the drivers seat and hollered back to Pelosi to line him up, then used it as a teachable moment on manuevering a vehicle stuck in the snow: aka as rocking

        WASHINGTON – President Obama isn’t tossing Rep. Charlie Rangel under the bus, despite suggesting the venerable Democrat “end his career with dignity,” the White House insisted Monday.

        Democrats fear Rangel’s vow to fight the charges – and a similar decision Monday by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), who also faces an ethics rap – will be an open wound for the party heading into the fall elections.

        After the House ethics committee slapped Rangel with 13 ethics charges last week, Obama praised the Harlem lion, but seemed to hint none-too-subtly that Rangel should quit before subjecting the country to a messy ethics trial.

        “I’m sure that what he wants is to be able to end his career with dignity. And my hope is that it happens,” Obama told CBS over the weekend.

        Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new

      2. ….it’s a cartoon. Take from it what you want.

        I personally see it as an extension of the latest dumbass hooting on the interwebz (contributed to by dumbass above) about the “scandal” involving the non-release of “SOMETHING” by the Obama administration.

        1. “I’m sure that what he wants is to be able to end his career with dignity. And my hope is that it happens,”

          F’in A, you bet he wishes Charlie would exit stage left.

  5. Betsy Warner from Grand Junction made an observation in her email letter-to-the-editor of today’s GJ Sentinel:

    I’m writing regarding a Colorado Matters interview with gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis that aired July 28 on the mid-morning show.

    McInnis spoke about education, stressing the need for teachers to regain control of the classroom. He was not referring to curriculum or testing, but rather to discipline….That being said, the interviewer moved on to a question about books that may have inspired McInnis’ worldview….

    PhotobucketThe gubernatorial candidate hesitated then answered that “Seabiscuit,” citing the movie, had been inspiring because of its portrayal of working-class Americans rising to the top. When the interviewer pressed McInnis on the fact that he was speaking of a movie and not a book, McInnis recanted saying that he was “not an academic.”

    Looks like McInnis is going to view the world the same way Bob Beauprez did in 2006 –from a horse’s rear end.

    1. .

      After all, only an “academic” technically can commit plagiarism.

      By redefining himself as “not an academic,” he has just created the perfect pre-emptory/ peremptory defense.

      .

  6. B. Buchanan made the announcement on (where else?) the boyles’show.  Her speciality is evidently financial management and the “money will be rolling in.”

    Meantime, someone send petey a coupon for Depends.  He is just wetting his pants on the prospect of all the national coverage for his show….where tom is the main feature.The IRish and the Eytalians united against the Mexicans….it is North Denver, all over again.  

    It would be world class fun, if it weren’t my state, my country and goddammit, my public airwaves….closed for the duration to anyone except the boyles groupies.

    1. Lets face it, the Looper is trying to fly low illegal aliens after his employee, Raul Gomez-Garcia, slaughtered Donald “Donnie” Young and greviously wounded Detective Jack Bishop. The two officers were shot in the back May 8, 2005. How can he lead on this jobs with justice issue?

      As a employee at Hickenlooper’s toney Cherry Cricket, Gomez was highly qualified … to be a hitman in a drug gang.

      Gomez-Garcia has almost no education, is illiterate and explained to investigators that he had carried a loaded gun since he was 13 years old. He came to the United States when he was 8 and lived in south central Los Angeles.

      Backing this Tancredo-inspired policy is a good first move by the Denver City Council stop the American job loses. The question is what mayoral support and leadership can Colorado’s citizens count on?

      http://www.thedenverchannel.co

      Councilmember Faatz had this to say in promoting the progressive ‘Americans Work First’ policy

      You can draw your own conclusions, we were laying off perfectly qualified city employees because of the budget crunch and yet money was being given to people who were not legally qualified to work for private contractors.

      1. Didn’t Donnie Young’s widow ask that her husband’s murder not be an issue in political campaigns?  I cannot find a link.

        But, I would hope that we would be cautious about the pain of  families.

        1. Young tragic deaths are always painful, just think of their children who will growup without the knowledge, wisdom, love, and guidance of their father.

          When you think of it … it is really beyond tragic.

          I wonder what Det. Jack Bishop thinks about illegal aliens?

  7. Just got another robocall from New Leadership, the pro-Romanoff 527 that caused such a firestorm between AR and MB supporters here on ColoPols: They called back with a “We should have said….” message. Didn’t expect that one. Will wonders never cease?

    Now if we can cut down on some of the vitriol here that’s been less than edifying, maybe I’ll go back to believing in miracles. And other stuff. Maybe.

      1. Because the introduction was almost verbatum from one of the posts I remember here (that I’m too lazy to go back and look up to cite specifically.)

    1. But I don’t see how it counts as an outing to name the name of someone who posts under their real name.  Can Wade Norris be outed?  Can Ray Springfield?  I mean, they are out by their choice.  How could they be outed?

      BTW- I’m still thinking about that Mary Ann /Ginger thing – and I too would add Mrs Howell.  So all three.

    2. .

      Steve couldn’t get BJ to acknowledge his superior insulting skills,

      so he’s going to sue to force BJ to bow down, saying “I am not worthy ?”

      CoPols needs to have a height minimum to post here.  Steve and BJ both sounded like they were 5 years old (except one of ’em uses really big words.)

      .

      1. but mostly out of stupidity, not maliciousness. He really doesn’t seem to understand the definitions of things like “plagiarism” and ended up accusing Steve of that. THEN, he dragged me into it by stating that I had accused Steve of plagiarism. (If you read the thread, try figuring that one out – but I won’t blame anyone for not wanting to wade through that muck.) And beej just can’t admit that he made a mistake.

        Well, I guess this means there won’t be any more pissing matches. But I now kinda hope Steve goes through with his suit. Beej needs a lesson in how the real world works.

    3. Steve (I) asked me if I (Steve) would post a link to his (my) Square State blog entry.

      I (Steve) contacted the CP webmaster this aftternoon to see if I (Steve) would be violating any Pols site rules in doing so.  Alva wrote me (him) back that it would not be a site violation so long as I (he) don’t make a habit of it.

      So here is Steve’s (my) side of the story:

      http://www.squarestate.net/dia

      Please read it if you are interested.

      Steve (I) is (am) adamant that neither of the ouster allegations is accurate.

      I (Steve) know that if Steve (I) were here (I am) that he (I) would say something along the lines of:  It’s been a long,  rough, nasty couple of weeks and there’s still one to go.  Be careful out there on that webby thing.  I (Steve) would hate to see anyone else sent into hard-drive limbo over this silly political s**t that we all seem to be addicted to.  Take a breath and count to ten (don’t start getting all sweaty, it’ll be OK to just count to three if you’re a registered Republican) before hitting “Post.”

      I (Steve) know that I (Steve) peronally will be taking my (his) own advice for the next week.

      (GD it’s crowded in here.  Move over, huh?)

  8. Sorry, but we must minimally enforce rules based on the proper context of the infraction, and once a decision is made we must enforce it. Some comments in this thread are missing as a result of enforcement action. The user in question violated two rules. So there is no confusion, the posting of personal details about fellow users is never, ever permissible. We don’t care if you can get the information on somebody’s Facebook profile, Google it in five seconds, or even another see it in a past comment on this blog. It is particularly unacceptable to do so when the express purpose is malicious.

    Secondly, we are tolerant of a significant level of crude expression on this blog, more than most other online forums. We try not to censor because our readers are adults who generally make appropriate and judicious use of vulgar language in the context of a larger point. But we don’t tolerate usage of racial slurs.

    It was a combination of these incidents that forced our hand in this case, and we stand by our decision.

    1. I was just wondering…. like you read my mind you answered.

      Hey,,,, I was kind of wondering about the Powerball numbers tomorrow. Promise I’ll share a couple of bucks with CoPols.

    2. You’ve got ’em and you enforce ’em.

      Hope there’s no problem with me changing my sig line, at least for a few days, in honor of my online friend.

        1. but I haven’t been around long enough to understand exactly what the triguardian thing is.

          By the way, with Steve gone now (except for my be he — really) doesn’t this mean that Pols can expect about a 70% falloof in page views?

              1. On my system, everything stays.  If a user is banned, I set a flag in the user database.  When comments are displayed (stored in a different database), the code checks the flag in the user database to see if the commenter is banned.

                    1. I created him a few months back to say some of the things I couldn’t say because of my public face.

                    2. Ok, ok.  

                      I actually like Steve – he thinks I don’t but I really do.  He’s really pleasant in person, and I still owe him a Guinness.

                      I do think that he let BJ just drive him batshit crazy, and as someone who’s been outed on this blog, I think that even though BJ had given some of that info out before that Steve posted it in a malicious fashion.

                      As far as the racial thing goes, I think you’d need to be way over-the-top hyper sensitive to think that anything racial at all was in Steve’s head when he posted it.

                    3. but their rules are pretty much “zero tolerance” and zero tolerance means “even if it’s painfully obvious that it’s not meant that way.”

                      I disagree that Steve’s use was malicious. It was more like “I can easily serve you with a subpoena because you’ve told us exactly who you are.” I know being threatened with a suit isn’t exactly the friendliest thing, but my idea of malicious would be contacting beej’s school about his posts here. And in that thread, beej posted comments challenging that Steve knew enough about him to be able to bring him to court, so I think he forced Steve’s hand.

                      Steve probably took it too seriously, but they both escalated the situation and this is what happened. Hopefully Pols will monitor future pissing matches and intervene sooner. Their policy vaguely discourages them, and I think in combination with some of beej’s factually inaccurate posting about other polsters (such as his claim that I was accusing Steve of plagiarism, when nothing I said could even be twisted out of proportion to say that) that maybe he should get the boot, too.

                    4. I don’t think beej was banned. He’s been scarce but I think he still has his privileges.

                    5. As long as you don’t mind having a stout with a nihilist….or WORSE!!!!!

                      Ali, the Republican party is bigoted, nativist, anti-intellectual and it’s in thrall to inane economic theories and scientific denialism.  It’s governing theory in opposition is nihilism.

                      – Snip. –

                      A man of integrity would stop calling himself a Republican.

                      -Old Time Dem

                    6. I can’t say that I like Steve, having never met him personally.  But after wading through the muck that was his last exchange with Beej (and did anyone else here start avoiding postings with rapidly expanding numbers of comments because of those two?) I have to say he was responding like an angry child.  The only way he had to respond to BJ was to threaten to take him to court?  

                      As far as the outing goes, I did not know BJ’s real (or full as the case may be) name until I read the thread.  But then I’ve not been a big fan of the “Steve and BJ Show”.

                      The racial comment came across as being  thoughtless, and maybe Steve should have clarified and apologized for any misconceptions.  But that would have meant apologizing to bjwilson.  And I really don’t think he’s capable of that.

                    7. because his account was disabled. And then he did apologize with a new username, but then that account was disabled and the posts deleted. And calling “cracker” a “racial slur” is at the very least a bit of a stretch.

                      Whether you knew BJ’s middle name or not is immaterial. BJ was posting under his real name, and had openly revealed in his posts his middle name, his school, his town, and his major. Since he wasn’t posting anonymously, no mention of identifying information had any effect on knowledge of his identity. It would be like someone remembering if Dave Thielan had once mentioned his middle name, and then making a joking reference to it. No one would consider that an “outing,” because Dave isn’t posting anonymously.

                      With this one act, Colorado Pols has lost all credibility.

                    8. even naming “David Thielan” should count as an “outing” by the definition that Pols used to ban Steve: It is information about David’s identity that has been freely shared, but does not appear in his screen name.

                    9. That was all Steve.  Just a quick Google search with B.J. Wilson will give you this.  That doesn’t count any searches using any name combination that would produce a “BJ”.  Steve gave out information that BJ did not.  That is “outing.”

                    10. beej most definitely gave out that info. I did some digging and besides at least one of the two posts where he spells out his full name, I at least found some diaries where other polsters were openly talking about him being at CSU. While I couldn’t find where he said that himself,*  I took that as evidence that he must have. And I personally recall many times that beej referred to his being a math grad student.

                      It’s true. Steve didn’t out beej.

                      * I eventually would have, but I didn’t want to dig more than a couple of minutes.

    3. I’ve had this terrific zinger saved up for bj the next time he triggered me. And now I won’t be able to use it? What a terrible waste of my idle mind.

        1. Days have passed, and Steve’s old comments remain. Not only that, the supposedly offending posts, that include supposedly “outing” information and a supposed “racial slur” remain. Pols has always erased those immediately, so that the offense and the publication of identifying information does not continue. Why not this time?

          Even Pols knows that the “offensive” information isn’t really offensive, and that there is no need to delete it (watch it disappear now!). The information that “outed” BJ can remain with impunity, because, since BJ doesn’t post anonymously, he was never really outed. The “racial slur” doesn’t have to be deleted because it’s not really a racial slur. If Pols had believed its own pretext, those posts would have been deleted immediately.

          1. Most of the past banned users haven’t been here for long before getting the boot. Steve has. I had thought that deleting the account deleted the comments, too, but maybe they only disabled him because of his sheer contribution. A lot of archived diaries would probably look weird if they deleted everything he ever wrote.

            1. with the material that is supposedly too offensive to be permitted on this site. After declaring it too offensive, it remains on this site. If they truly believe that the information in the post that names BJ Wilson (whose name surprise! is BJ Wilson) identified an anonymous poster on this site, that wouldn’t have let it remain. The truth is, they know that it doesn’t identify an anonymous poster; it identifies a poster who already had identified himself, and does so every single time he posts.

      1. It’s not possible to “out” someone who doesn’t post anonymously. BJ Wilson doesn’t post anonymously.

        And whether “cracker” is a “racial slur” or not appears to be open to interpretation. Bill Clinton used in on Larry King Live in 2008, without any ensuing scandal that Im aware of. In any case, everyone here knows that Steve did not intend it as a racial slur.

    4. Steve got banned for outing?  And used a racial slur?  I know he was getting really p/o’ed at BJ because beej just wouldn’t let up, but that’s not what I’d expect from him.

        1. Look, Steve broke the rules. He knew the rules, and he broke them. This is cut and dried. We don’t ban people because we dislike them or disagree with them — we’ve been criticized so many times on our own blog that you couldn’t possibly make that case. Steve broke the rules, so he was booted. It’s really not complicated.

          1. As Bellerophon said, before he was Orwellized, you can’t kill a dead person, give birth to an already living adult, or make someone completely bald any balder. Nor can you out someone who wasn’t posting anonymously.

            BJ had never intended nor tried to hide any aspect of his identity, and every single detail Steve posted had been openly shared in posts by BJ, under his real name, on Colorado Pols. Other posters have regularly discussed widely known and openly shared details of non-anonymous posters lives (including those that Steve referenced about BJ), and Steve had not way of knowing that some other standard would suddenly apply to him. He did not post it to out anyone, but to demonstrate that to BJ himself that the statement he had just made was false.

            As for the supposed racial slur, it turns out that it is not “cracker” is not universally considered to be a racial slur, and that Steve’s belief that it wasn’t was not only subjectively true, but perhaps objectively true as well. Bill Clinton had used the word on Larry King Live in 2008, without incident. It is normally considered the equavalent of “hillbilly”. Regardless of whether it can be classified as “a racial slur” or not, it’s improbable that you believe Steve intended it that way. You don’t ban people for not being aware enough of one connotation of a bit of fairly uncommon slang.

            It’s not that you had a personal grudge against Steve, or personally disliked him (though that may have been the case, and may have contributed to your decision), but rather that your entire raison d’etre is to signify superiority and infallability. Once the poor precipitous judgment played into BJ’s false but ubiquitous accusations, there was no going back, because to have admitted error would have compromised the image you are trying to cultivate.

            You keep insisting that your conclusions were indisputable, despite the fact that many reasonable people who post here have been disputing them. By definition, you are wrong at least about whether your conclusion is indisputable. And you are wrong about whether it is defensible as well.

  9. Former State Party Chair and Bennet supporter tells the Politico that basically Romanoff isn’t rich enough to win:

    “He hasn’t really been able to raise significant money. His base is a small donor base which is tapped out, which is why he sold his home and was forced to liquidate his life savings. He’s only got one house he can sell,” said former state party chairman Chris Gates, a Bennet supporter.

    It’s a valid point. If Romanoff can’t raise money, he will have a tough time winning the general.

    But here’s my problem with statements like this coming from Bennet supporters (not sure if Gates has an official role with the campaign, but he’s been quoted by both the Politico and Denver Past as a “Bennet supporter”). This basically sounds like he is saying Romanoff isn’t personally wealthy enough to be a successful candidate, and that personal wealth is what will win this seat.

    We have all seen that Bennet can out raise Romanoff, but the recent $300K loan tells me that Bennet has burned through his cash, and polling shows whatever he’s spent it on hasn’t been effective.

    I hope this message isn’t something Bennet is pushing, but if it is, I don’t think it will get him anywhere.

  10. Politico:

    We’d be willing to accept that, sure. I don’t think it is a significant part of what the DSCC raises overall, either. The DSCC doesn’t represent an industry or any group of industries or anything else. There’s no direct relationship,” Romjue said. “The percentage of PAC money they raise overall is low. We’re not going to unilaterally disarm.”

    …”You can always find an ivory tower person that’s completely pure. We’re not an ivory tower person. Andrew’s going to be funded by individuals, but of course we’ll accept money from the DSCC,” Romjue said.

    Here is some (outdated) info on the PACs that funded DSCC, which Romanoff–no purist, he–will gladly accept, so as not to ‘unilaterally’ disarm.  

    So which industries/sectors fund the DSCC?

    According to the Center for Responsive Politics (link above) Finance, Insurance & Rel Estate are the top contributor.  

      1. Foregoing PAC money is a gimmick IMO.  Is it reason enough to oppose a candidate–No, I supported Obama (and thought it was a gimmick then).  I want the Dem to win, and I want the nominee to use the resources available to do that.  

  11. From Jane Norton’s email today:

    Buck Said the U.S. Should Withdraw from Afghanistan After Achieving Certain Goals. “On the issue of Afghanistan, Buck agreed with his Republican opponents, then listed more complex challenges. ‘Afghanistan is known as the graveyard of empires,’ said Buck. ‘So many foreign conquerors have gone to Afghanistan and tried to conquer that country but left in shame.’ Buck listed three priorities for the United States to achieve before withdrawing from Afghanistan: To ensure that it is not a safe haven for terrorists, to disrupt the heroin trade and to promote stability in the region. ‘That’s the definition of victory,’ declared Buck. ‘If we can achieve those things, I think we can get out sooner and save American lives.'”

    Apparently Jane “Chickenhawk” Norton wants to keep us in the graveyard of empires forever…

    1. Buck’s “goals” are about as attainable as a full-scale rebuilding of the country, and are more expansive than goals set by the current Obama administration policy.

      Afghanistan will cease to be a safe haven for terrorists when it has a fully capable army and police force.  It will cease to be a hub for heroin about the same time Columbia ceases to become a hub for cocaine – and we’ve been fighting that battle for 30 years now.  And it will be a stabilizing influence in the region at the same time it also has a capable army and police force (and gets rid of its reputation for corruption).

      We cannot remain in Afghanistan forever, nor even really in our current configuration over a long term.  The current conflict has many of the negative aspects that kept us bogged down in Iraq without the positive influences that really boosted Iraq from “quagmire” to “recovering”.  The initial assessment of the “surge” in Afghanistan was IMHO the correct one: we have a year or perhaps a year and a half to show real progress – and that time is passing quickly; if we can’t recover the situation by then, the official government will have lost enough support among the people that we will be unable to contain the situation given our current resources.

        1. we could have a Repub Senator who can offer some sort of analysis or set of conditions for when they think we should get out, as opposed to bumper sticker cheerleading, or worse, not answering the question at all.

          1. but at least wrongness in a sense that someone will not insult your intelligence and will bother to explain why they think the way they do, like Buck does IMHO.

            That being said, I don’t think I would want to know why Jane Norton thinks the way she does.

    1. someone makes up to see “their story” in print.

      I’m amazed at how often people find themselves in this situation, or some variation.

      At least the mother/daughter can hit the bars together when they’re both single. The downside is they’re obviously attracted to the same type of men.

  12. The Liberty Leaders, a fife-and-drum duo that has been a fixture at Northern Colorado conservative rallies, has gone the way of Simon and Garfunkel and the Beatles.

    The cause of the breakup isn’t differences over musical styles or a woman. No, this group broke up over political differences – particularly the race for Larimer County sheriff – and the musicians say their tale is something of a parable for the Tea Party movement.

    “If we’re claiming to be Liberty Leaders and you don’t stand up for liberty, then there’s something wrong with that,” said John Weins of Johnstown, who played the fife with field snare drummer Mel Hilgenberg.

    ..The Liberty Leaders wore tri-cornered hats and other Revolutionary War-era garb, and played at most Tea Party and 9-12 rallies in Northern Colorado during the past 16 months.

    “I have always enjoyed Mel and John’s presence at various rallies and events,” said Nancy Rumfelt of Loveland, a founder of the 912 Liberty Circle. “With their attire and music, it really seemed to add a sense of our history…”

    Weins owned the clothing and drum and took them back after the breakup. He said he’ll continue to perform with a new drummer, starting with Wednesday’s parade for the Larimer County Fair & Rodeo.

    http://www.coloradoan.com/arti

  13. The live poll identified as ‘NAR’ asked general questions about the upcoming primary race between Bennet and Romanoff.

    How do you rate each?

    Which do you prefer?

    How likely are you to vote?

    Have you mailed in your ballot?

    Simple, fair questions.  Hope we get to see the results.  Anyone know who this pollster is in the field for?

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

62 readers online now

Newsletter

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