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

30%↑

15%↑

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

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%↑

35%↓

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
August 19, 2010 07:48 PM UTC

Why Is Hick Pushing the GOP's Destructive Anti-Government Message?

  • 124 Comments
  • by: davidsirota

(Interesting counterpoint on Hick’s new ad – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Colorado Democratic gubernatorial candidate John Hickenlooper has released his first campaign ad, and beneath the terrific production value and smart branding lurks a very disturbing message. See if you can catch what I’m referring to:

That’s right, at 15 seconds in, Hickenlooper says, “Colorado needs a governor who brings people together to create jobs and cut government spending.” And this isn’t one of many policy in one of many ads – this is the only policy message in the campaign’s very first, agenda-setting ad. So it’s very deliberate and very important.

Remember, Colorado has for years been aggressively slashing its budget thanks to the recession and the pressures of the odious Taxpayer Bill of Rights (which, though temporarily suspended by Ref C, still made a major spending impact). Because of these huge cuts, we’ve seen draconian reductions in teachers, police forces, road maintenance and basic infrastructure. Thanks to Colorado Springs’ experience with all these awful cuts, our state has become the infamous national cautionary tale about what happens to a state whose political culture becomes obsessed with the idea that the best kind of politician is the one who most aggressively promises to “cut government spending” – regardless of the consequences.

Because Republicans are likely to split the vote in this three-way race featuring GOP nominee Dan Maes and third-party candidate Tom Tancredo, this gubernatorial race is all but a coronation for Hickenlooper, which means he could be using the free pass to do what Colorado Democrats in the recent past have been doing to great electoral and public policy success – namely, countering the right’s insidious “cut government spending” mantra with a more constructive vision. But instead, Hickenlooper’s ad, while certainly cute in its construction, is actually using the free pass to reiterate the Republicans’ central (and most legitimately dangerous) argument about what Colorado’s fundamental challenge really is.

What’s particularly bad about this is that we have some idea of what Hickenlooper thinks should and should not be cut from government spending. Though his ad doesn’t specify where he wants to cut, Hickenlooper recently opposed Democratic efforts to reduce corporate welfare subsidies here in Colorado.

So we know he’s not interested in cutting those subsidies, which, of course, then leaves programs for regular working people on the chopping block. We’re talking stuff like schools, and low-income assistance and police and firefighting. Indeed, it would be nice if a Colorado reporter would ask Hickenlooper exactly which government programs he believes need to be cut, and what areas he thinks Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter’s administration is overspending on (by the way, I’d be happy to be the journalist who asks Hickenlooper these questions, but since Hickenlooper caught his foot in his mouth on my radio show a few months ago, he has unfortunately refused our invitations to come back on the show, preferring a monthly appointment on Mike Rosen’s conservative forum on KOA). Considering the hard work done by progressive groups and Democratic legislators to oppose TABOR and other TABOR-like initiatives, it would also be nice if those groups and those legislators took public issue with Hickenlooper’s central “cut government spending” message.

No doubt, this ad will get lots of applause from Democratic politicos here in Colorado and in D.C. They will say it’s construction, slick choreography and humor are brilliant – just brilliant! And, as I said, it certainly is a nice piece of marketing. But in a state that is facing extreme crises because of the “cut government spending” mantra Hickenlooper echoes, this ad is part of the problem, not part of the solution, sycophants predictable protests to the contrary notwithstanding.

The worst part is, Hickenlooper didn’t have to make this the central message of his campaign (by the way, just as polls show congressional Democrats don’t have to make conservatives’ deficit reduction mantra the central message of the Democratic 2010 campaign). Again, this race is probably going to be a coronation, which means there’s no extreme pressure for him to simply parrot Republicans’ most destructive talking points. In fact, he could have decided to talk about his laudable courage in successfully advocating modest tax increases here in Denver in order to preserve government spending on key municipal priorities. Or, he could have followed the lead of another Western Democratic governor from the even redder state where I used to live – that is, he could have trumpeted innovative ideas to raise more revenue and therefore avoid more spending cuts.

Instead, he did the opposite. He doubled-down on a promise to generally “cut government spending” – as if government overspending (not spending on specific programs he identifies as wasteful, but spending as a general concept) is the number one problem in Colorado. In making the choice he made, in telling us that he thinks that this is the central problem facing our state, Hickenlooper is telling us exactly what kind of policies he will pursue as governor.  

Tweet
Share

Comments

124 thoughts on “Why Is Hick Pushing the GOP’s Destructive Anti-Government Message?”

  2. And yet I can’t disagree with this diary on principle.

    It is a classicly funny Hickenlooper ad. And Hickenlooper’s economic agenda is as unserious and as destructive as anything the Republicans have put forward.

    Hick wants to reinstate all the corporate giveaways ASAP that the Democrats took huge risks to repeal in an election year.

    Instead of offering a single concrete suggestion for improving the economy, he’s just criticized what we’ve done so far. His “plan” ridiculous–he’s not going to form a blue ribbon committee like that inept Bill Ritter, no–he’s going to form 9 blue ribbon committees which will then report to four more blue ribbon committees which will then report to another blue ribbon committee, which will then report to him.

    And he’s gotten a free pass because he has no credible opposition. Must be nice.

    1. Right now, I’m not ready to read that much into the “cut government spending” remark. It’s possible that he plans to be aggressive in this area, but it’s also possible that he’s just saying that in order to give Maes even less to distinguish himself from Hick. Keep in mind that TABOR will probably force him to cut spending whether that was his plan or not; now it can become a campaign promise fulfilled.

      BTW, can anyone tell me if Hick cut a lot of Denver’s spending, and if so was it overly aggressive?

        1. which demonstrates effective administration, however, the Democrats have been saying for years that government is broke, so he’ll have to tow the line somehow.

          More interestinly is the evaporation of corporate home offices from Denver under Hickenlooper-Ritter. I put it on him as he parades around as the mayor of the Denver region. These losses have a very quiet effect of killing thousands of jobs right here in Denver.

          Last, I hope he doesn’t plan on cost control through illegal alien employment – he has demonstrated competance on that front. The downfall of resturant-style management tactics will be to further damage union and non union citizen paychecks.

            1. No just hwere did those 400 teamsters mechanic jobs go when they left Denver?

              not to mention that corporate home office … was it Indiana or Wisconsin … I forget. Oh yeah Indiana for the airline and Chicago for the beer maker.

                1. almost as many jobs were added in Colorado as the number that were lost in the move.  Also that there were many factors involved in the move. She said this in pointing out that the whole Dems drove Frontier from Denver mantra was a gross over-simplification and that the job picture didn’t actually change much.

      2. Any politician who repeats the “government should just cut back” mantra just leads the public to believe that this is all we really need to do to fix our budget problems. The reality is that at some point we’re going to have to raise new revenue. Nobody wants to talk about raising taxes because it’s a political killer, but the least they could do is to stop implying that cutting government is a solution — when it’s just a stop gap.

        1. … Hick doesn’t really say that it’s a solution in this ad, nor does he say it’s a stop gap.

          I agree that at some point someone in the Governor’s Mansion is going to have to sit down and be an adult about fixing this mess. But I’m not ready to see things Sirota’s way until Hick makes “cut government speding” a centerpiece to his platform rather than a side note in a campaign ad.

                1. No, David.  No grudge.  You’re all over the lot, that’s all. You’re a human weather vane.

                  You’re the only one between the two of us who seems to want Hick to be perfect.  To me, he is what he is, and that’s better than the other choices.

    2. In a Blue Ribbon Factory.  I think there is going to be a shortage of these ribbons soon.

      On the plus side that could be considered part of Hick’s economic plan to create jobs.

  3. would come in and find the smallest flaw and try to make the biggest deal out of it. David, you’re out of control.

    I really wish transplant pundits like would leave our state but unfortunately, like a Texan on the ski slopes, you can’t see past your own vanity.

    1. He’s not out of control.  This is a serious question.  It’s a cute ad but basically lists only two proposals: create jobs and cut spending.

      If cutting Colorado state spending is his largest or second largest proposal, that could be a problem for the knowledgeable people who realize that all state services are drastically underfunded already.  

  4. That won’t be an option – he’ll have to cut spending (assuming projections are accurate). And the message plays well with our more conservative independents, so he might as well use it.

    To me, the question is whether he’ll expend any political capital on tax increases. Spending cuts and tax increases aren’t mutually exclusive, after all.  

    1. Business won’t support increases on themselves … its already to expensive to put investment here in Colorado unless you need it hear to serve your market or are extracting a resource and exporting it.

      If 60, 16, 101 pass he’ll possibly have a shot a taking down TABOR, but the contra arguement to destroying capital is that the CSC already ruled with Ritter that he could hike taxes at his discretion. Remember car license hikes, software taxes, pop taxes, AC unit fees, candy taxes, payment of taxes on investment net losses, and everyone manufactures favorite the creation of a new tax on electricity!

      I think he’ll man up push some tax increases through – like tiered personal income tax increases (you love), small transaction taxes on business (you love), etc. But will he have the balls and political clout to push through taxes on the people as a whole?

      Fuck it, lets go plant 30,000 trees and feed the ever expanding homeless population.

      2. First off, the income tax rate is irrelevant to most businesses. I own a business and I have no idea what the rate is (either official or effective). None – because income tax comes out of profit.

        Second, what does matter is having a nice place to live and a highly educated workforce. Absolutely key to success. Crappy schools, people getting sick from uninspected food, poor transportation networks, weed overgrown parks – that is what will drive business out.

        If I could wave a magic wand, yes I would eliminate most (not all) other taxes and increase the income tax. Not to pay less, but to reduce the overhead of determining what to pay. But my next wish would be to adequately fund what is needed to have a quality state. And to increase my taxes to pay for it.

        Now I’m sure there are some selfish pricks who own a business, aren’t trying to grow it, want to keep as much money as they can, and don’t care if the state goes to hell. For those people, and taxes are too much. At least until the Mad Max tribes overrun their property and there are no police to protect them…

  5. party ID guy.  Back when he was running for mayor it wasn’t all that rare to find Rs who assumed he was an R in that non-partisan race. I know deeply conservative, economic and social, conservatives in real estate and other businesses who were happy to support him even though they knew he was technically a D, even more than was the case with Ken Salazar who also had a nice chunk of R support when he ran for Senate.  

    Hick is unique and in a state wide election, trust me, the fact that he is seen more as just himself, a successful, skilled and  personally very likeable businessman/mayor, than as a member of a party works for him.  

    1. he believes government is the solution and it should manage more of your life – craddle to grave. He also thinks it should do so in a very low cost manner.

        2. otherwise he is fully in as a liberal dem … he just assures the elite right that he’ll deliver services to the people at a lower cost then anyother dem and make use of government programs to keep the lower income folks happy enough.

      2. And deciding for them their destiny?  Women need to be wards of the state.

        Oh wait that is the staunchly conservative, individual liberties for all crowd.

  6. 1. David Sirota is right. Hick is capitulating to a right wing frame of the entire issue with his language and this is a problem for all of us. That said, it’s not a choice of whether Hick will get to cut or not, he will be forced to. The question is whether he can be lead the state to a comprehensive budget solution, and he has proven with Referendum C and the Better Denver campaigns that he can. I also trust Hick better to make the tough decisions that will have to be made in the meantime better that any Republican. But this is still the wrong frame for everything, George Lakoff would freak out.

    2. David Sirota is a narcissistic asshole who never misses the opportunity to cast every issue in the most alarmist and caustic way possible. In doing so he hopes to attract attention to his issue, but ends up mostly attracting attention to himself. This results in a cycle of repeated escalations and blowouts, and an actual psychologist should probably take it from here.

    These are not mutually exclusive truths. That’s my summary, and it took less time to write than this whole post took to read.

      1. Sirota is being the ideological purity police here, while at the same time fostering an unfortunate stereotype: that to be a REAL Democrat, you have to be for more government, more spending.

        What’s the matter with good government?

        1. I usually don’t even bother to read anything once I see it’s by Sirota anymore. Self-righteous doofus is what he is. Now granted that’s a different issue than the one raised here but I think what Hick says in this ad is not nearly so important in every detail as it is in being just another cute I’m Hick and you’re going to like me ad. And people do.

          It certainly isn’t a major deal one way or the other. I mean come on.  It’s a nice  little kick off ad.  Guess Sirota has to find something to blow up all out of proportion now that he doesn’t have Bennet/Romanoff with one somehow being Dr. Evil and the other Mr. Progressive Super Hero to get all frothing at the mouth hysterical over any more.

          Is it just me or does Sirota show absolutely no understanding of the Colorado electorate at all?

          1. because it inoculates him against all the negative ads that are sure to come.  They’re sure to come because he is and will remain the front runner, and slime is the great equalizer.

            Cutting government spending wasn’t the point of the ad.  But what’s wrong with that anyway?

            1. My gosh, it’s like you people have suddenly decided to join the Tea Party. Do your progressive principles mean that little to you? Heck, if the Democrat Party embraces the Tea Party platform I’ll vote for them any day.

                1. Based on what I heard in the media, I thought they hated our guts. I’m glad you’re joining the movement. There’s a Reagan roundup in Loveland today if you’re interested.

                  1. If they can’t spell, if they lie about our Prseident’s citizenship, if they support repeal of the 14th, if they oppose the mosque, I’ll have nothing to do with them.

            2. But the average Joe & Jane who sees this spot will remember zippo about the ‘cut government spending’ language.

              For cripessake, it’s a commercial, people. Why would you suppose the average viewer will parse it anymore than a Big O ad?

              Get real – all they’ll remember is seeing Hick climb in/out of the shower in a warm & fuzzy way.

      2. I get so damned sick of lefties whose only self-perceived function is to pick, carp, pick, carp and back-bite over the tiniest of minutia. Sirota is getting as paranoid as the silliest of the T-partiers, looking under every leaf for a less-than-pure sleeping cricket.

        And false: I don’t think this is a big issue at all. We know who Hick is. What did we expect him to offer? a state run bank chartered to invest only within Colorado’s borders? taxpayer supported childcare for working parents? universal free education K through 16, higher gasoline taxes to pay for roads and bridges? higher taxes on extractive industries? a non-food tax on sodas and sugary so-called energy drinks? Anything really left of right of center? And this “cut government spending” bit got Sirota steamed?  

  7. The cutting of government spending is the peoples message … they are sick an tired of the growth in government. His job is to appeal to the people, therefore it is an effective portion of his message.

    Of note and to counter your false assertion that Hick is leaning even slightly GOP you’ll note that he calls for “government to create jobs”. I guess he plans on picking up where Ritter left off with 4,400 new hires, he just plans to pay them less or reduce benefit costs.

    1. It’s my government, and I want to spend more of my money on getting people back to work (Don’t give me that tax cut stuff.), getting small banks back to lending in their communities, helping homeowners fend off foreclosure and lowering the value of my own home, getting class sizes down and relieving the burden of families trying to get their kids through college, kick-starting small business investment, spreading the costs of health insurance around universally, and on and on. These things cost money and only my government can do it efficiently and on sufficient scale. This people doesn’t think his government is doing nearly enough with his money, and if it has to get bigger, oh well. Size only matters when you’re not in love.

  8. The state constitution requires a balanced budget. Revenue projections predict decreased revenue. Less revenue means there will have to be less spending. He’s just stating the obvious.

    But of course, Sirota looks under the bed to find things to bludgeon moderate Democrats with. He won’t actually do any research, of course; he thinks MSU is the way to go.

    Sirota says: Romanoff is the progressive choice! Romanoff’s voting record says: no, he isn’t; he’s a moderate DLC Democrat.

    Sirota says: Hick was ducking responsibility by asking the FBI to investigate the cops who beat up citizens because he could have taken the Independent Monitor’s recommendation and fired them! City Charter says: Mayor can’t fire cops; only the Manager of Safety can fire cops. (Mayor can fire the Manager of Safety, and I’d like to see that. Maybe an investigation by an outside entity could turn up a good reason to do that. Hmmm … I wonder what outside entity would be competent to do such an investigation?)

    Now Sirota says: Hick shouldn’t talk about cutting spending, he should find ways to raise taxes instead! Colorado Constitution says: Governor can’t raise taxes, and spending can’t exceed revenue.

  9. David Sirota is a narcissistic asshole who never misses the opportunity to cast every issue in the most alarmist and caustic way possible. In doing so he hopes to attract attention to his issue, but ends up mostly attracting attention to himself. This results in a cycle of repeated escalations and blowouts, and an actual psychologist should probably take it from here.

    Well put, Jeffco Blue.  While I’m not a psychologist, I do understand the Colorado budget process and Sirora is simply stupid to claim the “Odious Tabor amendment” is resonsible for the last few years of cuts.

      A-We are just ending the five year time-out period from TABOR granted by Ref C.  No effect on our budget limits in that period.

     B-the cuts were caused by the recession, not TABOR.  Colorado has long had a balanced budget amendment, as do most states.  Due to the recession, our revenue was far below the limits imposed by TABOR, even without Ref C.

      Equally important, the TABOR “ratchet:, which would have been a nightmare as we tried to recover from the recession, was forever eliminated by Ref. C.

      The only conceivable argument that TABOR was responsible for the cuts is that it eliminated the right of the legislature to raise taxes without a vote of the people, as it briefly did with the sales tax in the recession in the 80s, IIRC.  But even without TABOR, it is ridiculous to think that this governor and this legislature woudl have unilaterally raised taxes in the face of this recession.

      Sirota is simply an ignorant fool, who should not be allow to write on fiscal issues.  You might as well blame the floods in Pakistan on TABOR as the recent spending cuts.

      The only thing that would have eased these cuts would have been for Colorado to have had a much larger rainy day fund, as State Treasurer Cary Kennedy tried to create.  The legislature didn’t do it.  Those legislators, not TABOR, led us to the radical cuts we now face.  

    1. 1> the governor and this legislature woudl have unilaterally raised taxes [on business and car owners] in the face of this recession. The result was jobs, future purchases, capital investment moved to other non taxed opportunities or other states.

      2> Property taxes in Colorado are very low .. especially in Denver. …. the solution is about jobs because those earning a paycheck pay taxes and spend money.

      Now jobs still won’t get radical dems to the fiscal heaven they seek, only a good solid tax increase on the general population will do that.

      1. TABOR exempts fees and the tax change on business was packaged as eliminating special exemptions.  Whether you agree with those definitions or not, my point that Sirota is an idiot is unaltered.  You cannot blame TABOR for preventing those fee increases when, in fact, those fees were increased within the boundaries of Tabor4.

          I agree on point two.  I only felt that no matter how low my taxes were, I couldn’t pay them if I lost my job.  That’s why I consistently opposed the Gallagher

        Amendment and the unfair burden it places on small business.

          I am no fan of TABOR.  But Sirota is dumber than a box of rocks to maintain that TABOR caused the current fiscal crisis — which was triggered by a lack of revenue, not the irrelevant spending ceilings of TABOR.  Having a budget limit of $100 is pretty irrelevant if my income is $50 — a point you understand and that Sirota does not.

  10. Governments at every level are dealing with less income. The only ways they can deal with this are to either increase taxes or cut spending. Since no one is going to campaign on raising taxes, then cutting government spending it is.

    Just about every candidate at every level can confidently say, “I’m going to cut government spending” because they’re not going to have a choice.

  11. I truly believe that progressives are an integral part of the Democratic Party who help to keep pushing us forward while preventing us from taking too many steps backward. I truly value that. David Sirota, however, doesn’t seem to grasp the necessity of moderate Democrats and yes, even the dreaded “ConservaDems”. Maybe it hasn’t sunk in that he’s in Colorado now.

    Is anyone really all that surprised he is putting Hick to his twisted purity test? He’s taken a short part of a line in a funny political ad about keeping the race clean and turned it into Hick’s “central message”. It’s ridiculous and Colorado progressives and moderates are giving way too much weight to this professional shit stirrer’s words.

    I’m guessing this is the real reason for Sirota’s ire:

    (by the way, I’d be happy to be the journalist who asks Hickenlooper these questions, but since Hickenlooper caught his foot in his mouth on my radio show a few months ago, he has unfortunately refused our invitations to come back on the show, preferring a monthly appointment on Mike Rosen’s conservative forum on KOA).

    Hick won’t go on Sirota’s show so David will spend the rest of the election season doing what Sirota does best: attacking Democrats.

    2. Exactly. He doesn’t have any understanding whatsoever of the Colorado electorate.  Of course, as with the likes of Limbaugh, it’s not about getting people elected who will be better for moving legislation in a more positive, if imperfect (aren’t we all?) direction.  It’s about his career as a professional lefty carper.  

      1. those in his own party. Unless those in his own Party happen to be Muslim, Mexican, Black, poor, gay, women, middle class…

        David Sirota would much rather attack Bennet and Hickenlooper for not meeting his strict idea of what a Democrat should be. Apparently, he prefers holding up ConservaDems turned Progressives like Romanoff as the perfect example of what all Dems should be.

        1. that is our strength and their weakness. The right has to toe the line or expect serious punishment for going astray of their political ideological purity. We however can have vigorous public debate of these things without having a litmus test.

          I agree with Sirota’s premise. It is the very line that jumped out at me and rung in my ears because for nearly four years now i have been so disappointed in Ritter’s refusal to seriously consider the revenue side of the equation in balancing Colorado’s budget. It has always been about slashing services, and almost completely at the expense of the neediest among our population.

          1. bravely refusing to toe some line. In fact he demands exactly that.  The reason the GOP is shrinking is because of their intolerance of any but a narrow set of views, pay homage to them or you’re out.  How is that different from Sirota’s attacks on all he sees as not within the liberal orthodoxy?  

            Not that he does even that with any consistency. After all he’s been a major shill for DLC centrist Romanoff who is no nearer lefty purity than Bennet. As far as I can see Sirota is just a self aggrandizing, insufferable twit who makes a career out of self righteous hissy fits.

            He has to find something over which to throw one every week.  If a single, general, unsurprising remark (spending will somehow have to be cut in the face of decreased revenue and governors don’t get to raise taxes by fiat) in a warm fuzzy introductory ad is the best excuse he can come up with this week, pardon me for not taking his manufactured hysteria seriously.

            Maybe he’ll come up with something a little less lame next week but, as with Rush,  I suspect as long as he can come up with something to bloviate about in print or on air it’s all good from his point of view.  Of course he’s a very minor bloviator compared to Rush and the living he makes no doubt doesn’t begin to compare but it’s basically the same model.

            1. as I see it is that we have room for Sirota’s and then we can all express our range of opinions about whatever he says. Witness however the power of Rush to get Republican lawmakers backtrack from any reasonable centrist positions because he attacks them on his show and gets the army of ditto-heads to start writing and calling and also gets the MSM of Faux News (HA!) to report on the communist sympathies of these formerly sane Republican politicos.

              I do not see we have that issue on our side, whether you like Sirota or agree with his positions or not.

                1. had the integrity, intelligence and breadth of knowledge of a Thom Hartmann.  Sirota wastes his, and our time, on lightweight nitpicking, he often uses shoddy data or none at all, and he exudes an air of superiority (when it clearly isn’t warranted).  So I’m not sure that he has the gravitas that you imply in your assertion.  I think he has a negligible impact on our electeds, and keeps the emotion-driven progressives in a counter-productive lather most of the time.

              2. of our pro lefty blatherers as GOP pols are of Rush. Make that terrified.

                Just saying Sirota is a silly jerk who would love to have the power that Rush has and whose motives are the same: He’s a career lefty hysteria monger just as Rush is a career righty hysteria monger.  Main difference is that Rush is wildly successful and wealthy and wields a lot of power over rightie pols while Sirota’s success is insignificant by comparison and he wields no particular power over Dem pols.

                Neither really needs to care who wins elections.  Rush may have great power over R pols and was scathing against McCain but was unable to influence the 2008 GOP presidential primary or general election. What does he care?  Opposition is actually a better career position for a pro flame thrower.

                Sirota would be in lefty talking head heaven with Maes as Governor but harping on Dems for lack of purity will do nicely too, as railing against McCain and Rush labeled RINOs in general during the 2008 primary season did for Rush. They are basically in the same business and that business should never be confused with looking out for our interests by getting those who would do us the most good elected.

                We need to keep that in mind. In fact, no candidate pure enough to suit Sirota could ever win state wide in Colorado. Probably why he wisely chose to pretend one of our contenders, Romanoff, is pure enough during the primary, studiously ignoring all evidence to the contrary.  Otherwise he wouldn’t have had anyone to support between Bennet and Romanoff and he had to have somebody to attack and somebody to promote or what would he have had to blather about? We didn’t oblige him with a real choice, such Miles/Salazar, this time and a guy has to make a living.

  12. That the Democrat Party is now the party of big business and corporatism. Or if he plans to cut elsewhere, is Hickenlooper the stealth Tea Party candidate? Dan Maes picked Tambor Williams for Lt. Gov. after all, maybe she’d go for some of your big spending programs since she voted for both Ref. C and Ref. D. I might even have to consider voting for Hickenlooper.

            1. I quit reading at “Democrat Party.”

              I know some people use that as a too-clever-by-half pejorative, but to me it’s just a simple grammatical error that reflects a certain lack of intelligence in the writer.

                    3. As you love to point out, the burden of proof is with the person who makes the claim. Your attempts to take credit for my work are getting ridiculous.

                    4. So NOW you want the burden of proof to fall on the person making the claim (as long as that person is not you, Beej). Brilliant.

                      Now to you understand why we ask you for links and other forms of evidence following your fundamentalist regurgitations?

                    5. I can always prove my points because I don’t pull them out of my ass or regurgitate something Hannity said.

                      Beej is a hypocrite, but his only gauge of what’s right and what’s fair is if it helps or hinders him. He’s a fairly typical teabagger in that respect.

                    6. This isn’t about proving a point of debate, it’s about what an unoriginal putz you are. Proving a point of debate has rules; proving that you’re a putz is something any encounter with you shows.

                      But… since my proof is real while yours is imaginary, I’ll go ahead an show you.

                      http://coloradopols.com/showCo…

                      Own up to it, beej. You can’t come up with your own arguments or your own insults. Make an appointment with your doctor and have a specialist run some tests. You’ll be better off figuring out what’s wrong now instead of decades down the line.

                    7. What you said was completely different. I think we understand what’s going on now. Time for YOU to make an appointment with the doctor. Ahem, I mean a shrink.

                    10. because you’re always regurgitating my retorts and other comments. Remember when I suggested you do this? (Except I wasn’t offensive and spoke about “shrinks.”)

                      Where are you from, anyway?

                    11. And I wouldn’t want to repeat your drivel anyway. You told me to go get checked by a doctor; same thing. Man up you pansy. Why do you want to know where I’m from?

                    12. After all, you’re the guy who went crying to Pols to ban Steve Harvey after he posted info you gave yourself.

                      I could do the same in this situation – verbal abuse like this is against Pols policy. But I’m a big boy. Follow my example.

                      Anyway, I want to know where you learned your attitudes from. You don’t sound like a Colorado guy to me. So where are you from?

                  3. going with the candidate we elected unlike the state republican Oligarch party is doing.

                    “Drop out for the good of the party, Dan Maes!” <– does that sound familiar?

                    2. Have you checked your “terms of use” lately?  The one the University made you sign before you were allowed to use their internet connection?

                      Best to review what you signed.

                      Note I never said which university, so there’s no outing here.

                    3. I mean,we might as well be holding debates with my cat. Incidentally my cat is extremely conservative. He strongly believes that things should always be done exactly as they always have been done forever.

                    6. voting is so Democratic you know.

                      And even in Republics, they use the Democratic process to decide things. It is called representative Democracy.

                    7. Venezuela is a Republic. I didn’t address the United States at all. You’re factually wrong, but instead of just admitting that and moving on you just dial up the dickishness.

    2. including elected Senators and House members plus Gov. Owens that supported Ref. C & D – particularly Ref C. Vote as you wish bj, but a majority of Colorado’s voters agreed on Ref.C.  I was one of them and proud to have helped out on the Ref. C campaign.  

      1. supported both C and D. Many of the ones who did so have left the party in the years since to become unaffiliated, feeling that the party had in fact left behind common sense, Main street, pro-business Chamber of Commerce type Republicans like themselves and they no longer recognized what it had become.  Many of them became part of the big change in Arapahoe County registration stats.

  13. They did a poll and a focus group and people liked the line.

    That is why Hick did it.

    Stop wringing your hands over it

    He doesn’t mean it.

  16. in this election, so I think we are seeing the real Hick, the former businessman Hick, the moderate who attacked the recent oil and gas rules that actually take steps to protect fragile environments from oil and gas excesses. He sees these as dangerous, and wants to “address” them if and when he is elected.

    So, if you have environmental protection values, take a hard look at Hick’s statements and record on these issues, and don’t be surprised if he is another Ken Salazar

    1. It’s not a real choice.  I’m pro business, so Hickenlooper is fine with me.  Some government spending is good; some not so much.  I don’t see why Democrats should support every bit of government spending. Until the private sector improves, government spending will likely have to be cut.

      1. but does it have to come at the expense of critical water supplies for things like coal bed methane production? Does it have to come at the expense of ecological treasures such as the Roan Plateau? I see Hick’s signaling to the oil and gas industry that he is willing to re-examine rules that took years of negotiations among ALL stakeholders (oil and gas companies are frankly lying when they say they didn’t have a seat at the table) as a bad sign before he is even elected.

        I am saying that if you want a balanced approach, I would watch Hick if he is elected, and keep an eye on the direction he goes, and take steps to correct that path if it is too short term pro-development.  

  17. 1) Election year rhetoric doesn’t equal reality, but the reality is, whether these pass or not, Hickenlooper will have to cut spending.

    2) Probably 100x more people now know Hickenlooper said this in his ad thanks to Sirota. If he would have shut his pie hole, no one would even remember what Governor Hickenlooper said – they’d be watching him take a shower with his clothes on talking about partisan politics.

    Whose friggin’ side are you working for Sirota? Do us all a favor and shut up until after the election.

  18. in his own twisted way, he does have a legitimate question to put to John Hickenlooper regarding what public sector services will be reduced or eliminated to “cut” government spending.

    With food banks showing record use and a substantial percentage of the population unable to find work to take care of themselves and their families, what programs is Mr. Hickenlooper proposing to get the ax or have services curtailed?  This is a non-trivial question because you have to ask why are these programs unnecessary or overfunded and what are the consequences of reducing them at different budget scenarios.  If Mr. Hickenlooper is just fishing for votes from the anti-government crowd than how is he being any different than Maes and his promise to chop 4,000 jobs as soon as he is sworn into office without providing specifics?

    Instead of being a Wormtongue and using the right question to cast doubts on the purity of the candidate, it would have been a better diary if he had asked the question without all the “we hates all Democratic politicians” baggage.

  19. I suspect this line resonates well with voters. Colorado Democrats may be socially progressive, but they are fiscally conservative. I’m with you — raise my taxes if you must — just take care of Colorado’s kids! I think we are in the minority among western Dems.

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

88 readers online now

Newsletter

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