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
September 04, 2010 08:42 PM UTC

Where do we place our defensive line?

  • 74 Comments
  • by: DavidThi808

In the Battle of the Bulge (WWII) the allies first priority was to hold the shoulders (edges) of the German advance while falling back as needed in the pocket. Holding where they must while temporarily retreating where necessary was key to minimizing the impact of the German offensive.

This election is going to be bad news for us Democrats. We need to minimize our losses. And that means we have to put our resources into the very close races that matter the most. Not who we like best. Not based on how we wish we still had the momentum of ’08. We need to follow the model laid out in The Blueprint where we make a dispassionate decision based on the numbers.

First off, I think our most important seats this election are the state level executive positions, for two reasons. First the U.S. House is almost certainly going to flip and even if the U.S. Senate does not flip, it will be even less effective than it is now. This means we are on our own mitigating the impact of the recession. To do so the two most critical offices are Governor and Treasurer.

Treasurer is key because having an inept Republican with goofy financial ideas investing our money will lose the state money, potentially a lot of money.  Dollars drive most everything and having Stapleton piss away money is the same as passing a tax cut. Fortunately we’re in good shape on these two races.

Second is state legislative races. Control of the state House & Senate is gigantic. But the key point is control – put in the effort required to retain control. Extra seats are nice and let’s take what we can get, but it’s not more important than the remaining items below. So we need to look at how each race is shaking out, which competitive ones are required to retain control, and can we credibly win those – and then put our efforts in on those if we have a decent chance.

Third, I think the federal seats we can hold come next – because there’s no term limits. In most years incumbency helps a lot (not so much this year). And so, we want to keep the Gang of Four in their seats. But we have to do so where we have a chance. My earlier plan was to donate heavily to Bennet and Markey and spend weekends going door to door in Longmont for both. But if many of us do that and they both then lose by 2% instead of 4%, but Ed Perlmutter and John Salazar each lose by 100 votes, we did a very stupid thing.

Fourth and final is Secretary of State and Attorney General. Yes both are important. Yes having a partisan hack in either hurts the state. But the level of damage is less than what we face with the other seats. And both will be open seats again, AG in 4 years and SoS in 8. (It is particularly hard to put this last because we have superb people for these jobs in Bernie and Stan.)

So how should we approach this?

  1. Make a donation to Cary Kennedy.

  2. Wait on the rest of your donations. The polls this month will start to lock in what the real odds for each candidate is. Donate small amounts for those you really like, but save the majority of your money for September 30.

  3. If the gubernatorial race gets competitive (which could well happen), then be prepared to go all in on Hick. We’re in a world of hurt economically and that office will have more impact than every other office together. On the flip side, if Hick retains a strong majority give him your support, but not your money.

  4. If treasurer remains close, donate substantially there.

  5. If the House and/or Senate control hangs on one or two close races, donate the rest there.

  6. You have a couple of bucks left over? Ok, take a very dispassionate look at the Gang of Four races. Donate to the ones where the numbers have them tied or our guy in a lead well within the margin of error. Cry over the others.

  7. Still some bucks left? Ok Ms. Moneybags, same thing with Bernie, Stan, and any additional close state legislative races. If they’re close, kick in some money.

Being rational about this sucks. If I got to give a free win to one candidate it would be Betsy Markey. I think Bernie Buescher and Stan Garnett are both superb. (And I have donated a little to all three.) But just as in ’08 we won just about every close and sort-of close race, this year is clearly looking to give the Republicans most of the close and sort-of close races.

And to those Democrats who say speaking like this helps the Republicans – bullshit. Looking realistically at the situation and acting to minimizing the damage helps us Democrats. Shooting the messenger helps the Republicans. Donating to someone we like but who can’t win this year may make us feel good today, but it’s not going to help the country.

Where do you think our final defensive line will be?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tweet
Share

Comments

74 thoughts on “Where do we place our defensive line?”

  2. I also think that the Senate race is critical.  I will vote for Bennet in order to keep the Supreme Court from going completely catholic/conservative. Third would be the governor’s race.

    The problem with the blueprint is that it operates independently of democratic voters/party.  The money may decide just to sit this one out and there no party organization.   OFA?  I don’t think they are effective w/o a lot of money and an easy race.  I think they managed to beat romanoff, but at great cost to the grass roots party.

    1. That means we need the state legislature and AG. Perlmutter is the d direct result of having Salazar forAG and getting a competitive  D7.  For 2012,  SOS vitally important.  

      Since Tancredo and Maes both swear they are in it to win it we can afford to pay more attention to state leg and AG, SOS races.  Holding every congressional delegation seat we can goes without saying.

      In past elections I’ve recommended fighting hard in my own no hoper CD6 and in safe R State House and Senate districts in hopes of getting close enough to attract targeting in the future.  That worked for us here in HD38 and now we have SD26 as well for the first time ever.  But in this election, I would recommend not wasting time or energy on sure losers in any race.    

      We have a realistic chance of keeping our entire congressional delegation and there may not be another purple state where that’s even a possibility.  But we  can’t afford to waste anything beyond common courtesy on lost causes. I’ll put up my Flerlage sign. I’ve written the small check and done some early name rec phone banking but that’s it. Time to get down to serious business and save everything we possibly can.  Once again, it’s up to Colorado to show Dems the way as we have in the last several elections.

      1. The President appoints, but the Senate MUST confirm.  There are a majority of catholics on the supreme court for the first time ever.  

        See, this is why I urge you to carefully outline your arguments or adopt the kind of proof used in elementary geometry.

        Bennet and Buck are vying for the Senate seat.  If the Senate goes republican (conservative?) they may refuse to confirm anyone who is not conservative. (IMHO, the majority of legal talent which is conservative is that which was educated by the jesuits at some point…NOTE: IMHO..I could be wrong.)

        The liberals on the court are old and fragile. Hence my concern that the Senate to be elected in 2010 could find itself considering the appointment of more than one Supreme Court Justice.

        1. One senator out of 100 is not going to make a huge difference in two years; I would think you would base your support for a U.S. senator on more important things like, you know, what legislation they would vote for.

          1. If it doesn’t matter for Supreme Court appointments, how does it matter for legislation voting?

            What’s the plan? If Buck gets elected, he’s just going to hang around Colorado, smoking joints and watching porn, since nothing he could do in the Senate ever really matters, man?

            It’s like he’s campaigning to be the next Wayne Allard. “Don’t worry, guys, it doesn’t matter that Buck’s an extremist since he’ll never accomplish anything!”

        2. Especially consideration of the probable upcoming Supremes openings. One only has to look at the pro-corporate leanings of the present ugly four to see how the very nature of our democracy is at stake at the Senate confirmation level for future justices.

        3. I take offense. The SCOTUS spent centuries with a Protestant majority, during which period it oscillated between right and left like everything else in American politics. To suggest that a Catholic majority would have some agenda is to suggest that we all think alike, which just isn’t the case. You’ll see a difference in the jurisprudence of, say, Antonin Scalia and Sonia Sotomayor.

          Would you be complaining if the court was on the brink of a Protestant majority again? If not, what you’re peddling is just fear of a particular religious group, just like the Glenn Becks do with Islam.

          1. I am making an observation, not peddling an agenda.  It is a conservative court which alarms me, not a catholic one.  I am observing that there are a lot of catholics on the court now.

            Do tell, as a life long democratic and lifelong catholic, how do you reconcile your party’s platform on abortion and your religion’s doctrine on abortion? Please, I mean this as a serious question.

            1. which bothered me. If that was not your intent, then I apologize. My point is that the religion of an individual should not be used as a factor in determining her qualification to serve on the SCOTUS. Bennet supported Sotomayor; Buck would not have. To insinuate that Bennet would act to prevent a Catholic takeover of the court is ludicrous because he didn’t do that, nor should he have.

              As to your second point: not all Catholics oppose abortion rights, and not all Democrats support them. For me, life begins at conception (and I base that view in science, not religion, as the difference between gametes and an adult human is a difference in kind while the difference between a fetus and an adult human is a difference in development – I can elaborate much much more if you’d like), so I see all abortions that aren’t medically necessary to preserve the health of the mother as unethical and immoral. I’m also a pragmatist, so I concede that abortion should be legal so that women aren’t killed or seriously injured in back alleys. I also recognize that a scientific consensus on the issue does not exist, and that abortion is fundamentally a women’s issue that has been decided by men for far too long.

              More importantly, I believe that this is an issue that demands legislative debate and ought not be decided in the SCOTUS. I’m nowhere near qualified to be a jurist, but the reasoning in Roe v. Wade seems wishy-washy at best.

              2. But, I was not asking your position on abortion.  I was asking your position on your church’s position on abortion and its claim to have the authority to impose that position on catholics in public office.

                You know, I can see where  my original statement was not clear.  This is what I was attempting to say, based only on my observations, and that was that there are a lot of people running around under the conservative banner…ie. radio talk show host, Palin, etc.  They are conservative but they are not highly educated and do not appear to be well qualified for the judiciary.

                I would cite the legendary William F. Buckley and George Will as two well educated conservatives who present coherent arguments as opposed those who call themselves conservatives but just toss out slogans w/o any philosophical foundations.  Now this is my observation, if you look at the potential pool of well educated conservatives who would be potential candidates for the Supreme Court, a disproportionate number of them are catholic educated.  That was my point.

                Now, here is my concern.  You articulate your particular position on abortion.  It not your church’s position on abortion. Your church holds that life begins at conception and abortion is always wrong, no exceptions.  Your church once held that if the life of the mother was at stake, that the life of the child had to be protected, first.  With medical advances, this is no longer such an issue…except when a pregnant woman is found to have cancer and told that treatment would kill the fetus.  As a matter of fact, as I am sure you know, Littleton, there is now a movement to canonize a modern mother who refused treatment for her cancer and gave  birth to a healthy child, but then the mother died.

                I know that not all catholics accept the church’s teaching on abortion or even birth control and I know that pro-life democrats exist.  That is not the issue:

                Here is the issue:  Bishops within your church have refused communion to catholic politicians who have not publicly supported your church’s position on abortion.  As you know, that is a very serious sanction. It implies that the politician may be in a state of mortal sin. It demonstrates that the church reserves the right to dictate to a catholic in public office what his/her positions must be.

                Your church does not accept your position on abortion. You don’t reconcile your membership in the democratic party with your fidelity to your church’s doctrine.  You simply ignore the conflict.

                Your bishop, chaput, says you cannot do that.  Your bishop, chaput, says that when Kennedy gave his speech outlining his position on separation of church and state, he was WRONG.  I believe that one of the factors in the defeat of Kerry was the bishops’ attack on his positions of abortion and gay rights.  So the issue is not one which can be ignored.

                So will  catholics on the SCOTUS vote as their bishops dictate, particularly since justices are appointed for life?

                My concern is really not abortion, but so far that issue illustrates so well the power that bishops claim.  My concern are those civil and criminal cases involving priests who abuse children and the official coverup, which are now moving through the federal and state judiciaries and will eventually reach SCOTUS.

                1. To indicate that the “church does not accept [my] position on abortion” belies a deep-seated misunderstanding of what the Catholic Church is. As I’m sure you’re aware, the word “catholic” means universal or all-encompassing. For you (or any priest or bishop, for that matter) to say that the Church believes X, or that individuals who believe Y are not Catholic, is a contradiction in terms. As a Church, we believe the faith that we profess in our Creed. Every other element of Catholic doctrine is an attempt by the clergy to present an applicable Christian ethic for consumption by the Church’s members and other interested parties.

                  In simpler terms, the positions of “the church” are not the positions of the Pope, cardinals, and bishops. They are the positions of all adherents to the Catholic faith. The Catholic position on abortion is complex and contentious, just like our position on a myriad of other topical social issues.

                  Even so, the Church does agree with my position on abortion: it is, generally speaking, unethical and immoral. The vast majority of clergymembers and other scholars of the faith do not carry their criticism to the level of a policy prescription. I believe that priests and bishops who refuse to grant the sacrament of communion to politicians who have supported abortion rights do a disservice to the faith, but those clergymen obviously have doubts as to whether those politicians are in a state of mortal sin. As you know, politicians denied communion in one community are always able to receive communion elsewhere from a more sympathetic priest.

                  As to Archbishop Chaput – he and I have our differences about where the Church’s authority ends. I don’t shirk from our disagreement, however, and the fact that I have bones of contention with an archbishop makes me no less of a Catholic than he. The Church has survived as a powerful entity because we are a heterogenous group. The fact that Archbishops as distinct as Charles Chaput and Oscar Romero can be authorities within the same body says a great deal about its staying power.

                  Political parties would do well to learn the same lesson. The Republican Party is growing more and more estranged from the majority of voters because it purges members deemed ideologically impure (the Church made this mistake far too many times in its history). Democrats, thus far, have failed to seize the opportunity to claim the mantle of the big tent party. If you wish to see our party grow stronger, then you would embrace me as someone different from yourself – as a religious Catholic who is skeptical of abortion rights, but as a lifelong Democrat nonetheless.

                  I should also note that my political identity and affiliation springs from my faith. I was raised on the belief that my two most important obligations are to love God and to love my neighbor as myself. I was also taught to hate the notion of family (Luke 14:26) – that I owe nothing less to the poor woman on the street than to my own brother or sister or child. The left drew me in as the political homologue to a Christian ethic, and thus was birthed my political identity.

                  1. To indicate that the “church does not accept [my] position on abortion” belies a deep-seated misunderstanding of what the Catholic Church is

                    Give me a break.  You are making up your own doctrine.

                    You position is not only pro-choice, but you sound like a Protestant!  Make no assumptions about my understanding of the catholic faith. NONE.

                    Here is the real issue:

                    I believe that priests and bishops who refuse to grant the sacrament of communion to politicians who have supported abortion rights do a disservice to the faith,

                    I am not concerned with the personal conscience of either the politician or the priest.  I am concerned that such a public sanction can influence the vote.  As I believe it did in Ohio.  Also, you can not preclude the possibility that all bishops could decide to deny communion to catholic politicians who held a pro-choice position on abortion.

                    Or, that the Pope could make such a pro-choice position grounds for excommunication.

                    You are giving me your opinion.  As far as I can see, you simply choose to believe those parts of the catholic doctrine which allow you to be essentially pro-choice and remain a democrat. You have given me your accommodation.

                    Let me be clear.  I respect your right to your religious beliefs as well as your beliefs on abortion.  I do not wish to debate those positions.

                    I continue to be concerned that catholic bishops act in ways to sanction catholic politicians who do not act as some catholic bishops dictate.  For that reason, I have concerns about how catholic justices would rule if on the Supreme Court.  Let me stress, it is the bishops, themselves, who have reintroduced this concern.  Not I.

                    I don’t believe in a religious test for office.  But the bishops have raised this issue.

                    2. Let me emphasize:

                      I believe it is important to have dems continue to control the US Senate because of the importance of confirming liberal justices to SCOTUS.  So that is where i think we dems should put our “defensive line.”

          2. you are being bigoted about are OK to be bigoted about.  Catholics are likely to be pro-choice so the resident pro-choice ColoradoPols crowd already foresees forced labor camps where rape victims will be housed against their will to have children popping up along I-25.

            Something about the upcoming whopping they are about to have administered to them lets them rationalize bad behavior.

  3. from Joseph A. Palermo

    There’s no good news for Democrats this election season because there’s no good news. Yet it’s hard to believe that the American people this November are going to return the party to power that not too long ago lied the nation into war, doubled the national debt, and collapsed the economy. When has a political party ever been returned to power so soon after destroying the lives and livelihoods of so many people?

    There was a window of opportunity to bring Wall Street to heel and to bolster the neglected and maligned public sector institutions, but President Obama chose instead to play nice with the Republican nihilists in the Senate who don’t care about anything other than fooling enough people to win the next election and squeezing every ounce of political gain out of each 24-hour news cycle.

  6. You would do well to marshall resources for Salazar and Peremutter.  That is where the just losing to losing badly battle will be fought.

    You may not want to hear that, and I would just as soon see you waste your money, but that would be the most likely investment with a ROI.

    1. the can’t manage to spell Ed Perlmutter’s name correctly…

      I know, I know…”people make mistakes” and blah, blah, blah…  You keep on repeeting thos talking points, H…it’s dooin ya reel good…

  7. 1-Tea Party extremism does not play well in a state like Colorado.  Buck has already dropped from a 9 point lead to a 3 point in a

    Republican=leaning poll, Rassy.  Bennet will pull this out.

    2-It’s kind of crazy to think the gov race will get close.  Maes crashing and burning will depress the whole Republican ticket.  Both Houses of the lege will stay D.  Kennedy, Buescher, will win.  AG–right now, I’d say Suthers gets by Garnett, but he can’t afford any more screw-ups.

     3-Salazar and Perlmutter are locks.  I’m still now sure the Rs realize that District 4 is 86 percent (of voters) in the three urban counties of Boulder, Weld, Larimer, now the far toolies where both Cory Gardner and moiself hail from.  Markey’s ads, I’m a small business woman who never got a bailout, are effective.  Where is Cory?

      If there is an R pickup, this is it, but I think it’s too close to call.

             

      1. 1. The polls seem to continue to confuse you.  Rasmussen Buck had Buck up 5, now he is up 4 at 49% to 45%.  But you knew that.

        2. Salazar and Perlmutter, both polling behind their opponents and with less than 50% at labor day are in grave danger, not locks.

        1. You guys were saying this all over the blog. Double digits!

          Now he’s down to a four-point lead, in the notoriously Republican-friendly Rasmussen poll.

          That’s called tanking. That’s a negative trajectory. And this is before people even know Buck’s extremist positions on issues like abortion and student loans. (Of course, since Buck doesn’t know what tomorrow’s positions on those issues will be either, I guess that’s only fair.)

          1. Buck’s position on student loans?

            Just what might that be?

            If you are referring to the lies Senator Bennet has stated, here is some help.  Some of the local news stations actually check what Mikey says against the record.  Guess what?  Mikey does not speak the truth.  Here’s what 9News found:

            QUOTE: And Ken Buck wants to end student loans for middle class kids. Buck: I don’t think our Founding Fathers ever intended the federal government have student loans.

            TRUTH: The narrator’s assertion that he wants to end student loans for middle class kids is false.

            What Buck has said on multiple occasions is that he believes the private sector would do a better job providing student loans than the federal government which has grown to a level he does not believe the Founding Fathers intended. As he told The Wall Street Journal last month, “I’ve never heard one person say ‘Take my kid’s student loans away,’ ” he said, referring to his stance that the government should get out of the college-loan business. But it’s the reality.” (Source: Wall Street Journal, July 26: http://online.wsj.com/article/…

            But advocating for the federal government to get out of the business of distributing student loans is not equivalent to ending the practice of giving student loans to any kid.

            SXP aren’t you glad that I have helped you in your search for truth?

            1. and you’re violating Fair Use, and thus the terms of use of the blog. Keep posting that shit everywhere and you will get banned by the blog.

              Oh and by the way, Buck wants to eliminate federal funding for student loans. Deal with it, Lord of the Douche.

              1. Oh and by the way, Buck wants to eliminate federal funding for student loans. Deal with it, Lord of the Douche.

                QUOTE: And Ken Buck wants to end student loans for middle class kids. Buck: I don’t think our Founding Fathers ever intended the federal government have student loans.

                TRUTH: The narrator’s assertion that he wants to end student loans for middle class kids is false.

                1. The fact that you stopped actually blockquoting other people’s words (and are just passing them off as your own) doesn’t mean you’ve started abiding by Fair Use.

                  Oh and yes, Buck wants to eliminate all federal funding for student loans. That would take away lots of kids’ student loans. It’s not that he wants no kids to ever have student loans, he just doesn’t want middle-class kids who get them from the government to have them.

                  Rich kids can get as many student loans as they want, under Buck’s plan. Buck helps those who help themselves!

                  1. Perhaps you could share where you came to learn what you are saying?

                    As you know the above quote, stating your factual predicate is false is from 9 News.  The same conclusion was reached by 7 News where they stated:


                    Narrator: “And Buck wants to end student loans for middle class kids.”

                    Buck: “I don’t think our Founding Fathers ever intended the federal government have student loans.”

                    FACT BUT MISLEADING: For the way his comments are used.

                    FICTION: The narration that Buck wants to end student loans is a false statement.

                    Any reason why you persist in telling untruths?

                    Do you really believe what you are saying is true?

                    If so, why and based on what?

                    1. The most offensive one, because I believe that what a Republican says in the primary is what he really believes. Sorry that position is no longer operative.

                      Just how many times do you think you can cut and paste something without attribution before Colorado Pols gets sued for it? They’ve already gotten sued for less.  

                    2. “The most offensive one, because I believe that what a Republican says in the primary is what he really believes. Sorry that position is no longer operative.”

                      Let me help you.  He has never said that. Did you read this somewhere?  If so cite it.

                      On a video? A link.

                      He never said what you claim, but kind of hard to disprove a negative.

                      Why don’t you admit it sounds bad so you made it up?

                      If it really exists Bennet would have it and 7 and 9 News would not be calling him a liar.  That stuff does not help him or you.  The DP alread is making him sound amaesing, if you get the drift.

                      What you are saying is flat out not true.  Just admit it and go to church tomorrow feeling much better.

                    3. http://dyn.politico.com/prints…

                      During an appearance in May on a local radio program, Buck suggested that the government should not be in the business of providing student loans.

                      “Over time, we have to wean the American public off those,” he said.

                      It’s actually really easy to find these.

                      I haven’t bothered repeating the quotes because you claim any genuine quote is made up, even if you can see and hear Buck saying it. Want more? I’ll stick a bunch in my sig line if you want.

                      But I suspect what you really want is for nobody to know what Buck actually believes until after the election.

                    4. The Obamacare legislation changed the way student financial aid is handled.  Previously banks and other private parties made loans which were backed up by a federal government guarantee in case of default.  As part of Obamacare legislation the private sector was cut out and the federal government makes the loans directly.

                      Do you know what the quote “over time, we have to wean the American public off these” refers to.  Was he immediately before that referring to “student loans”?  Was he immediately before that referring to Michael Bennet’s crack habit?  It would seem to be important to know what he was referring to.

                      Anything at all supporting your statement:

                      Oh and yes, Buck wants to eliminate all federal funding for student loans. That would take away lots of kids’ student loans. It’s not that he wants no kids to ever have student loans, he just doesn’t want middle-class kids who get them from the government to have them.

                      I did not think so.

                    5. Stay classy, H-man.

                      Buck was actually referring to student loans in that statement. In order to deny that, you have to assume that Politico was lying when they directly quoted him.

                      Either every media outlet is lying about Buck’s original statements or Buck is lying. Occam’s razor tells me Buck is lying. And obviously you are too.

                    6. Here is a representative version of what you have been posting:

                      Oh and yes, Buck wants to eliminate all federal funding for student loans. That would take away lots of kids’ student loans. It’s not that he wants no kids to ever have student loans, he just doesn’t want middle-class kids who get them from the government to have them.

                      Rich kids can get as many student loans as they want, under Buck’s plan. Buck helps those who help themselves!

                      The support for your proposition is found here:


                      During an appearance in May on a local radio program, Buck suggested that the government should not be in the business of providing student loans.

                      “Over time, we have to wean the American public off those,” he said.

                       

                      The statement seems to be from a radio interview which has been reported as follows:

                      “There are other agencies, like the Department of Education, that I think we can’t go in on day one and just wholesale get out. We have student loans and other programs that people have built up a dependence on, and over time, I’m not talking about 30 years, but over time we have to wean the American public off of those and bring those back to the states where they legitimately belong. I think it is a complicated mess. We’ve been doing this for 60 years and it’s going to take us some time to get out of the spending mess that we’re in,” said Buck

                      Now, comparing your assertion to the full context of the comment from which the quote was taken, do you think it is a fair conclusion?

                      The only fair conclusion in my view is he was talking about having student loan programs run at a state level, not who should be entitled to loans, or even whether the federal government should guarntee them, which by the way he says should be continued.

                    7. it looks like he wants the federal government to stop helping students get loans. Yes, that’s much clearer.

                    8. and Buck wants student loans handled by the state, not to eliminate them:

                      We have student loans and other programs that people have built up a dependence on, and over time, I’m not talking about 30 years, but over time we have to wean the American public off of those and bring those back to the states where they legitimately belong.

                      I am now sure you will no longer claim Buck wants to eliminate student loans because you are honest? Right?

                    9. I was being sarcastic. Try to read more better.

                      Buck wants to be in the federal government. Buck wants the federal government to stop being involved in student loans. Therefore Buck wants to do everything in his power to cut off help from students. I’m sure if Buck were campaigning for state government, he would also want states to stop giving student loans. But we don’t know yet.

                      You want me to praise Buck because he hasn’t yet proposed criminalizing students getting loans. Um, no. Many students who currently get loans would no longer get loans if anyone was dumb enough to vote for Buck’s bill.

            2. …where they were, where there was abuse and huge profits (where did that $$$ come from?).

              The banks LOVED the deal they had.  They borrow money at low rates from the government (see, it’s still a government loan!), they loan it at higher rates, all with a 100% guarantee of being default-proof!

              Wow, sweet deal.

              So, how is adding another layer of management good for the public?

              Fuck ’em.  

        1. Even David isn’t naive enough to think Buck is popular in Boulder, considering that he wants to eliminate all federal funding for higher education and student loans.

          1. You would not have gotten than piece of wisdom from Mikey would you?  Mikey does not speak the truth.  Here is what that unfair media thinks about Mikey’s claim:

            QUOTE: And Ken Buck wants to end student loans for middle class kids. Buck: I don’t think our Founding Fathers ever intended the federal government have student loans.

            TRUTH: The narrator’s assertion that he wants to end student loans for middle class kids is false.

            What Buck has said on multiple occasions is that he believes the private sector would do a better job providing student loans than the federal government which has grown to a level he does not believe the Founding Fathers intended. As he told The Wall Street Journal last month, “I’ve never heard one person say ‘Take my kid’s student loans away,’ ” he said, referring to his stance that the government should get out of the college-loan business. But it’s the reality.” (Source: Wall Street Journal, July 26: http://online.wsj.com/article/…

            But advocating for the federal government to get out of the business of distributing student loans is not equivalent to ending the practice of giving student loans to any kid.

            You wouldn’t be wanting to repeat a lie would you?

            1. You need to work on your vocabulary. “No longer operative” and “false” are not the same thing. The fact that Buck doesn’t want us to know he wants to end student loans is not the same as it being false that Buck wants to end student loans.

              He wants the federal government to stop helping kids get student loans. His solution is to have the private sector take over. In other words, he wants students to wish and pray for student loans from banks who have no motivation to give them, rather than have deserving students actually get them with the government’s help.

              You can bitch about the truth all you want, but it doesn’t turn false.

              And show some fucking respect for your opponent, you dumb little lying sack of shit. I think Buck is a dishonest hack, but I don’t call him Kenny-Boy or some such shit.  

              1. I got it.  

                A bird whispered in your ear at the same time it did Mikey?

                You know Buck is in support of the federal government backing student loans don’t you?

                Didn’t Mikey tell you that too?

                Any proof of anything?

                Nah.

                Class act sxp

                1. Buck wants no kids to have student loans.

                  Buck wants the government to eliminate student loans.

                  Buck wants the government to fund student loans.

                  Buck wants the government to guarantee student loans.

                  Buck wants the private sector to handle student loans.

                  Buck has every position on student loans you could possibly want! Get your fresh positions on student loans here! Get ’em while they’re hot!

                  Except anyone who says federal funding for all education should be eliminated probably means it, no matter how much his supporters try to lie on his behalf.  

  8. “We” being Democrats (this is, last I checked, a multi-partisan blog).

    I’m guessing the action is in CO-04, the Senate race, and some choice State House and Senate seats, with the possibility of other executive races being competitive.

    The real question is, I think, not where do we place the defensive line, but how do we play the game?  We can play a ground-giving game or we can play to hold and perhaps extend.  We’ve been playing the ground-giving game, trying to hold out an olive branch to a Republican Party that’s not interested in treating with us.  If we want to recover our position, we have to change the game.

  10. Here is the link:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09…

    They expect that the National Dems will be evaluating pulling support from Betsy in a couple weeks if they still can’t see that she has any pathway to keeping her seat.

    National Dems on Senat side will likely be doing the same with Senator Bennet in my opinion.

    They recognize the need for a triage system and these guys are lost.

    1. To quote from it:

      A national campaign trumpeting Democratic accomplishments on health care, education and Wall Street regulation has given way to a race-by-race defensive strategy. Democratic incumbents are moving to aggressively define their Republican opponents and individualize races in an effort to inoculate themselves from the national mood.

      By listing the above the Dems are just reminding voters that they have been ineffective (and mostly missing in action) on jobs and the economy. If you’re not talking about jobs, you’re losing the voters.

            2. I think the 9+ page views/visitor shows the stuff is being read. And I do get 2 kinds of email, most thanking me for an evenhanded presentation and a small number very upset that I hide a clear liberal bias pretending to be evenhanded. So I think that signifies it has an impact.

              I think it has an influence, but mostly in the information it imparts. I doubt my suggestion by itself carries much weight.

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

224 readers online now

Newsletter

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