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%
September 18, 2010 08:15 PM UTC
161 Comments
Thank you.
a most eloquent post… stated better than I could hope to do.
Thank You. Bookmarked.
They won’t have the votes to repeal the whole act, but if Buck wins, there’s a half-decent chance that means it was a heavy enough R turnout year that the Republicans will have 49-51 Senate votes. If they do, then between those folks and Ben Nelson, the votes could well exist to choke off the next year’s funding for the most important part of the health law: subsidies for low- to middle-income workers.
To JO and her “there’s not enough difference between Buck and Bennet to be worth voting”: Many of us wanted more progressive health reform, but c’mon, there’s a HUGE difference between having, versus cutting, $1 trillion to help thousands more have health care.
This was my biggest criticism of elements (certainly not everyone) of the so-called progressives: i.e. they would rather kill the bill because it didn’t implement a single-payer or public-option, than pass something that was a step in the right direction.
n/t
It’s more like the party of no ideas. With a few exceptions, the only thing the Republican Party has left to run on is fear and a nihilistic view of government.
Simply put the core of the Republican ideology is the idea that government can’t do anything right. Voting yes on most proposals would give evidence that government can do some things right, undercutting the Republican ideology.
Republicans keep saying government doesn’t work, and then they get elected and prove it.
The GOP of today doesn’t want anything to work, except the rich getting richer.
But–and this is familiar territory for anyone in the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party–the alternative (Buck) is so much worse that it is incumbent upon those of us in that wing to vote for Bennet.
That would be the blueblood autocracy wing of the party.
Fortunately they’re not as dumb as you think they are.
The Supreme Court’s definition of pornography has been more or less: “I know it when I see it.” The same seems somewhat true for who “bought” the primary or is a member of the “autocracy.” You know it when you see it, in other words subjective and not terribly useful.
This was a term first coined and used by the late Senator Paul Wellstone to refer to the progressive/left portion of the Democratic Party, as distinguished from what later became known as the Blue Dog segment of the Party.
even with obviously insane candidates like O’Donnell, Angle, Miller, Buck, etc on the ballot. Once the Republican primary dust has settled they all get in line. Even Rove got in line behind O’Donnell after ruthlessly bashing her.
The Democrats have a masochistic need to backbite and snipe at each other. The Republicans may be going through a purge of their moderates, but they’re still all on the same page at the end of the day. Democrats are still tearing each other down with comments like “the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party” instead of banding together to insure we keep control of the government.
It’s intensely frustrating.
This is precisely what scares me about the Democratic Party. I certainly share your concerns about the intraparty sniping. My nightmare scenario is that those who make comments like “The Democratic Wing” are going to end up controlling the party (thankfully, they haven’t so far) and the result will be purges similar to what is going on in the GOP.
walking precincts, doing voter protection, and captaining precincts for Democrats since you were in diapers. Long before the ascendancy of the DLC, we did control the Democratic Party. You still need us, too–watch what happens to faux-democrat Blanche Lincoln in a few weeks, for a demonstration of what happens when you actively work against labor and the middle-class backbone of the Democratic Party.
I am done with “more and better” Democrats, and will henceforth only work to elect “better” Democrats. I’ll still vote for Bennet et al, but that’s about it.
There are also consequences to buying an election, or a President who thinks he can turn his pet projects into Senators, or an organization that was founded to fight for progressive causes but ends up fighting to defeat a Democrat in a primary.
Bill Ritter’s anti-abortion stance didn’t seem to bother Bennet Democrats when he ran for Governor. Now we are supposed to think it’s the end of the world that Buck is anti-abortion?
Nancycronk bashed Buck for being religious the other day. But Bennet said he believes in God too. So why should I care that Buck believes in God? Bennet bothers me more on religion because I think he’s (once again) saying something for political expediency rather than telling us what he really believes or stands for. I don’t care who believes in God and who doesn’t. But I do care that a person believes enough in himself or herself to stand and fight for something.
Bennet’s biggest problem is that he couldn’t lead anyone out of a paper bag. If he could, his other problems would have been quickly forgotten.
Bennet supporters like to appease us Romanoff supporters by saying, “We had two outstanding candidates in the primary.” The truth is we had one and he lost because the other side fixed the game (not literally, figuratively).
That leaves me with a tough choice. Reward Obama and Ritter (and Udall, Waak, etc) for this sham they brought upon us or vote for a Republican or don’t vote at all. I’m choosing not to vote at all.
But I’ve mostly kept my mouth shut since the primary election. Due to the tough choice mentioned above.
By the way, how has that “mock the Romanoff supporters” strategy been working for you all?
link me to one of my posts where I did that. Otherwise I will just consider you among the delusional (and not because you supported AR).
Examples?
I certainly haven’t, and yet it was in reply to me. I guess it is all a conspiracy…
By which your party chooses the candidate that MOST PEOPLE want, instead of who YOU want, then I would say that keeping your mouth shut is a good thing.
Better you should understand how your party chooses candidates before you shoot off your mouth.
Your failure to do your civic duty will be interpreted as support for Buck.
If you hate Obama that much, maybe that’s what you want. But what Democrats DO you support, if not the ones who can actually win elections?
But I think he made a big mistake in forcing Bennet upon us.
What’s done is done, and it’s counterproductive to hang around pontificating about who should or shouldn’t have gotten the Senate seat. The important this is where to we go from here, not what should have happened in the past.
I think of it more along the lines if you’re eligible to vote but don’t, you forfeit you’re right to kvetch when things don’t go your way.
Republican control without blinking. You clearly don’t give a shit about how it will effect those less fortunate than you. You try to convince yourself that it won’t be that bad, not like it was under Bush. Who cares if they repeal or de-fund HCR right? I mean YOU have coverage. Who cares if immigration reform never sees the light of day in this Congress. It’s not like you’re here illegal.
And you pray you’ll be able to pry Buck out of that seat in 6 years. You pray we’ll have a candidate pure enough for you in 6 years who is still viable enough to win. You pray having an uber-con won’t have a negative effect on Udall’s race in 4 years not to mention the Presidential race in 2 years.
Those are some impressive progressive principles.
All so you can prove a point.
You care more about getting Democrats elected. The ends justify the means, right?
If Bennet loses you need to blame:
1. Bennet.
2. Ritter & Obama.
…
500,321. Me.
At least in 6 years Democrats will get to choose their own candidate.
Maybe Buck should only debate Bennet if the Green Party candidate is invited?
Oops, only the Diva from CD-4 would try to pull that off.
I do. Our choice in this election comes down to a Republican and a Democrat. You have a vote to cast. That’s democracy.
My entire point was that as a “progressive” it strikes me as false that you would choose to move the country backwards, subject millions of the less fortunate to further hardship, because you feel our Dem isn’t as strong as the guy he beat.
As a progressive you should be asking yourself if our Dem is better or worse than the Republican. Will our Dem help those less fortunate more or less than the Republican.
We can debate ends and means in 4 years when Udall is up for reelection. Right now, I’m more interested in watching how progressives conduct themselves. I find it hypocritical that they take the moral high ground and preach to moderates and ConservaDems about ends justifying means but are apparently more than willing to let so many people continue to suffer just to prove a point.
Just try. Try really, really hard to say “Democrat.” Once you get that accomplished, try really hard to say “liberal.” If you can’t get past “progressive,” at least throw socialist in there somewhere.
Prove to us that you really are as stupid as we think. But before you post anything, you might want to look up the definition of “socialism” before you throw out the conservative’s favorite pet word. I love when you guys do this because it just flaunts your own ignorance.
Go ahead. I’ll wait.
While you’re at it. You should also look up:
Marxist
Communist
Totalitarian
Maoist
Conservatives/Republicans seem partial to these too.
Even Beejster and Libertad sometimes are amusing or present a (bad) case.
Marilou is most like those old fashioned dolls with a string to pull to say a word or two. Always the same, no cortex required.
Seniors have NO choice but government intrusion.
Seeing as how seniors have paid into this system their entire life it CAN NOT BE SOCIALISM! Also, seniors aren’t the only one who pay into Medicare. Medicare is actually collectivist not socialist. The government doesn’t pay for it, we all do.
Just another example of conservatives finding a nice shiny word and taking a 5 year old’s delight in showing it to everyone.
Wanna try again? Maybe you should ask Beej to help you since he is so much more educated than the rest of us. I’m sure he can come up with something in our country that is socialist.
Medicare contributions by those who have paid into it isn’t diddly squat. Just like SS. It takes the younger working stiffs to support us old codgers.
BTW, just what IS a codger, old or otherwise?
I have a basic working knowledge of how Medicare works which is why I mentioned that more than just seniors pay into it. The point I was attempting to make was that seniors pay in their entire working lives and then when they become eligible they receive that money back augmented by the contributions of others.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard the word codger used in any other context. Maybe it’s in the beaver family? LOL 😉
That is, seniors on Medicare still pay into the system. Any Polster is free to correct me, but I think it runs like this:
Part A is hospitalization. No extra premium, but the senior is still responsible for 20% of covered costs.
Part B is doctor’s office care. Around $130/mo insurance fee and then there’s still that 20% not covered.
Part D is the pharmaceutical coverage, I don’t recall the monthly premium.
And then there is private “Medigap” insurance to cover that 20%; my mother’s is about $1600/yr.
But even at let’s call it $300/mo it’s a pretty good deal considering the utilization for old people.
When I was a regular kinda working guy and I would see that 3% Medicare deduction, I thought it a hell of a deal for my parent’s care.
Medicare is good.
pays 75% of Medicare expenses, tells you what doctors you can see and what health care you can have. If even tells you what supplement policies you can buy.
If government has total control of seniors’ health care, that is socialism. Seniors have NO choice but Medicare if they want to buy insurance.
Obamacare is getting there quickly. The aim of Obamacare is total control of everyone’s health. The stimulus bill provided for a medical dossier on everyone. You like that?
Why? I want freedom, not government tyranny. Don’t you?
anti-choice laws are government tyranny by any reasonable definition, yet you’re the loudest proponent of them here.
As is the case with all the hard right, you want freedom for yourself but not those who disagree with you.
(1)Winning office is the main way you (or your party) gains power and influence.
(2) In a Democracy you aren’t always going to get everything you want. If you want to get anything done you have to compromise with your opposition.
when Republicans have been showing us for many years that it isn’t really true. They do not negotiate, and when they do, it’s not in good faith. Their main objective is to enforce party discipline by whatever means necessary to thwart the Democratic agenda at all costs. This is true even when that is the agenda Americans obviously wanted by the overwhelming electoral results of the previous election!
While I certainly don’t deny your claim about the Republicans, the Democratic Party also shares responsibility.
(1) Democrats filibustered judges under President Bush, then when the Republicans do the same under President Obama, the Democrats call to end the filibuster (just as the GOP did under Bush).
(2) When the healthcare bill was working its way through Congress, many of the so-called “progressives” called to kill the healthcare bill. Why? Because the legislation did have a public option or plans for a single-payer system.
That “progressives” would rather let people go without insurance and die, than accept a step in the right direction, I found particularly troubling.
Republicans filibustered literally every piece of legislation.
A wee little tiny bit different there, I think.
The whole issue of filibustering, or failing to consider, judges arose in the Clinton years. We’ve been living with the fallout ever since.
I wasn’t thinking solely about judges. But if you want to take the use of filibuster back you can take it last least back to when the Dixiecrats (they were part of the party then) used it to filibuster civil rights legislation. You can probably take the use filibuster farther back than that.
Joe Biden used it to bring down under the Reagan and Bush (H.W.) administration.http:
//online.wsj.com/article/SB124294934268945409
.html
I knew Bork was the start of much of the rancor, but didn’t realize how it had spread.
That said, I’m always suspicious of any opinion piece in the WSJ, so it would be interesting to see the counter-opinion.
There are about 120 opening in the federal judiciary. As to most of them Obama has not gotten around to nominating anyone yet. He has been busy tending to other matters that must be more important to him.
It’s much better to use the google first, eh?
http://judicialnominations.org/
Total Federal Judges: 876
Current Vacancies: 103 (20 circuit, 83 district)
Pending Confirmations: 45 (12 circuit, 33 district)
Waiting for Floor Vote: 17 (5 circuit, 12 district)
Unanimous Committee Vote: 12
So let’s see, 103 vacancies (not 120) minus 45 pending confirmations = 58.
And if you look at the vacancies, probably 30 or more date back to before Obama took office. And given the fact that a lot of judges didn’t want to retire when Bush could choose their successor, it’s no wonder there’s been a surge.
And I’m not sure they’re wrong.
Put on your big boy pants and stop throwing a tantrum. If you’re going to do just fine regardless of who controls the Senate, and you don’t actually care about other people who can benefit from Democratic policies, then just join the Republican party. As it is, you are functionally equivalent to Zell Miller.
An additional stimulus to be spent on infrastructure renewal projects to create new jobs? Is that a Democratic policy you have in mind?
And I do hope your memory is slightly longer than just the past week, because Bennet did support lots of Obama’s priorities before fucking up this one. I expect him to support many other Democratic policies, even if he’s not 100% reliable.
Buck would have filibustered this as well as filibustering health care reform, financial reform, and the first stimulus package. Bennet didn’t.
The additional stimulus could still be proposed in January. You could go to Bennet’s office and complain and protest and try to get him to change his mind about opposing it. It could work. Buck would ignore you, because he (like everyone) will view a progressive who didn’t support Bennet as a conservative.
to conversation, emails, etc. He’ll engage in a discussion about the reasons he opposes a new stimulus. You may be able to help him change his POV
Does that make him a liar?
it demonstrates his intelligence and shows him to be an open minded, intelligent member of our species. As when he changed his mind re public option.
I believe that you will change your mind H and endorse President Obama as a great American leader. That will demonstrate your intelligence.
then yes, he would be a liar. Have any examples of Bennet doing that?
No? Not any?
Kind of strange how only Buck keeps getting caught up in that little trap, huh?
As I’ve said before, my memory, while fading, goes back at least to February 2009, Month II of Obama’s Presidency and Bennet’s Senatacy, when he went for a romp with the Blue Dogs to oppose Obama’s proposal on this very subject for the first time.
I stand corrected (but still pissed off).
Big mistake to get into this discussion.
People already KNOW that you don’t give a shit who your party’s candidate might be.
OldBen, there’s little I can say that would salve the wounds suffered by many after the Democratic primary. But I suspect the wounds are even deeper on the GOP side.
It was conservaDem Ritter that chose Bennet afterall — not Obama. Besides, in this purple state, who other than David Sirota or Wade Norris would actually meet the liberal standards of, well, Sirota and Norris?
Should you choose not to vote at all, that is at least better than voting for Buck as a protest of battles lost.
The purpose of my diary was to present my perspective on the critical priorities and choices facing our nation to the truly undecided.
I respect your decision, much as the Republicans who will undervote in the Governor’s race.
OldBen, there’s little I can say that would salve the wounds suffered by many after the Democratic primary. But I suspect the wounds are even deeper on the GOP side.
===========================================
The “wounds” of the Romanoff v. Bennet primary are nothing compared to what happened during the 2008 Democratic Presidential primary.
The pro-choice agenda in Colorado has been advanced by Ritter, and would be taken backwards nationally by the Republicans with Buck in the Senate. To pretend there’s no difference is dishonest.
If you think any elected official gives a damns about the “reward” your vote represents, you’re pathetically naive. Politics is a zero-sum game. If your side’s agenda doesn’t go forward, the other side’s does. You don’t vote to give someone brownie points, you vote to put the better candidate in office.
Name one way in which Ritter has “advanced” the pro-choice agenda. It’s not true. Bill Ritter is as anti-choice as Ken Buck. Again to those of you who were around a while ago when NARAL endorsed Silverman over Ritter for DA and cut NARAL off for doing so. You have now reaped what you have sewed. Four years of no progress. The reality is that we could have had a pro-choice law passed in this state with the first Democratic majorities and Governor since abortion became an issue. But no,you didn’t listen way back then and you are responsible. If the Republicans take back over this year, well, it’s your fault.
He’s made Planned Parenthood a state partner for reduced pricing for contraceptives, expanding access.
As the highest executive in the state he outspokenly opposed the Personhood Initiative.
What Pro-Choice law would you have like to have seen passed? Requiring that Sex Ed taught in the state be science-based? Check!
I’m not at all clear what you’re talking about as far as past endorsements now coming back to make a Republican resurgence the fault of the Pro-Choice community.
The thrust of my point was about the Senate race.
Do you really think there’s no policy difference between Ritter and Buck on reproductive healthcare access?
Do you really think “none of the above” is a better choice than “the lesser of two evils?”
Hey you kids! get off the damn lawn! Or else! Or else I’ll go inside and stop yelling at you.
That’s not true at all. I proudly criticise him for being a hypocrite. He is religious, sucked up to the tea party, got the nomination using tea party money and on the backs of tea party people (some of whom are very sincere religious people I respect in other ways), and then Ken Buck turned on them for the general and is pretending he is a moderate. Ken Buck used them to get where he is, and whether he secretly believes in their platform or not, has changed his stripes for expediency.
Michael Bennet didn’t do that. He said he was a moderate Dem on fiscal issues and a progressive Dem on social issues FROM THE BEGINNING, and he stuck to it. He could have sucked up to all the Romanoff progressive zealots, to David Sirota, to every other self-appointed progressive gurus, and trade in his business gear suits and ties for tie-dye and hiker shoes (like my family and I wear), but he chose to be himself. He got beat up pretty bad by Romanoffers for being himself, too.
I respect people with honest convictions. In fact, several of the tea partiers I battled last year while working for health reform were FRIENDS of mine (one of them has brought that up here, in fact).
I respect her because her faith teaches her a fetus is a living person from conception. (which is not to say I respect the tea party movement, which is astroturfing paid for by big business). My faith, and my personal experience does not agree that life begins at conception. I believe the body is getting prepared to house a soul, but I do not believe a soul is present when two microscopic cells merge. Mine is more in line with a “viability” argument. I respect her faith, and I ask her to respect mine, by not forcing me and my family and friends to have to follow the tenets of another person’s faith (i.e. by restricting our reproductive rights because it violates THEIR faith).
So, OB, know what you are talking about before you type, please. I respect religious people of all faiths. In fact, I taught religious school for years in an interfaith setting. I don’t respect hypocrites of any faith.
And I worked hard to elect Bill Ritter and Ken Salazar, as well, and actually respected that they were not ashamed of their Catholic backgrounds and their pro-life upbringing. The difference was, they knew that their religious views should not dictate taking away the rights of others who hold different religious views. Additionally, they didn’t use religious people to step on to get where they ultimately got, and then turn on them when they got there. They had integrity, and I still support them both strongly to this day. I may not agree with all their votes but I respect them as good, decent men.
I could even say the same about Tom Tancredo and Mike Coffman, two men whose views make my flesh crawl. They may be politically nuts, but at least their consistent.
Ken Buck used religious people to get the nomination, then has now become another person entirely on television. Regardless of where he stands in his heart (does he even know?), he is a giant sell-out for whoever can help him most. That disgusts me.
Not the first time OBWan pissed me off.
Your one responsibility as a citizen is to vote. Use it. Democracy is full of trade-offs and is very frustrating. As Churchill said, “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” I don’t understand what it is you want but withholding your vote is not a constructive response. It is not up to others to ask you to vote. It is not up to politicians to beg for your vote. It is your responsibility, the most basic of a citizen. Good luck
Choosing not to speak often implies a greater stance.
The appropriate argument here is to point out that realistically our only two options for senator this year are Bennet and Buck. Even by not choosing one, you are choosing one.
Not even insinuating, but actually saying that not voting somehow makes someone less of an American is offensive. Does it follow everywhere? For instance, if I pass a tea-party demonstration and don’t stop to yell, even though it will accomplish nothing but a possible fist fight, does that also make me less of an American?
Anyway, if a politician wants a vote, they need to do whatever they deem to be appropriate to earn it. No American citizen should be required to cast a vote for any candidate who hasn’t earned it in that citizen’s mind.
But wow.
Aah, I said it is your responsibility to vote. I didn’t say required. If your only responsibility as a driver is to not hit other people or objects, are you no longer a driver if you do? Of course not. Your argument doesn’t have logic.
As I’m sure you will next suggest it, I will say I am not suggesting that their be penalties for not voting. However, if I am in a circle of people and we are discussing the country and challenges it faces, will I be more or less interested in what you have to say if you do not vote? Ask around and find out. If you think there are challenges that must be addressed in this country and you don’t vote, what do you expect me to do about it? Sorry, I don’t have a magic wand. If you don’t want to be part of the solution, what is left?
Before I posted. You’re still wrong. As I pointed out above, an under vote is in fact a way to express political voice. If someone is really that unhappy with the candidates, I wouldn’t hold it against them. And I’m sorry that you might feel stuck with what their opinion was… that’s just how it goes in a democracy.
I discount opinions based on lack of knowledge on the issue. Those people vote all the time. But they have more of a right and are better citizens? Seriously?
Oh, and watch your analogies. If I go straight forward with your logic, you are now either licensing people to vote or speak freely. Since you assumed I’d get that out of the analogy, you should have taken three seconds to come up with something else random to type.
As we all know, the beauty/barber-shop question of 2010 has become, “Who’re you gonna vote against?” I’m reluctant to interrupt this cozy discussion (and wouldn’t do so had my moniker not appeared next to a quote I’m pretty sure I never typed, even if I thought it), and even if includes a discussion carried out in the realm of higher math (+1, +2, -1, etc.), I decided to weigh in, just in case anyone’s pet apoplexy needs exercising on a Saturday afternoon….
Before getting to harrydoby’s list, may I observe: With a 60-40 majority (or 59-41, or 57-43 if we take out Nelson, Ben, Lieberman, Joe, and Teddy) the Democrats had one helluva a time passing a watered-down health-care bill, get appointments through, and didn’t even take up energy OR immigration. Given the antiquated rules and practices of the Senate, of which I am wholly aware, I seriously doubt that the next Senate will be any better and will probably be worse. After all, Democrats can play Parliamentary Procedure 2.0 on their Xboxes too. As I’ve observed elsewhere, the Senate has become a major impediment to solving this country’s problems and probably ought to be auctioned off on Antiques Roadshow or somesuch. That ain’t gonna happen in the next two years, though…is it?
Second, freshmen senators hold little sway and have little influence. Yes, there’s the matter of the majority leader (or not) and committee chairs (of greater interest), but thanks to the Teahadists of the First State, our worries appear to be much diminished. Thanks Delaware.
And third. As I’ve said elsewhere, given the choices provided to Coloradoans between one Republican and another, I don’t really see this election as terribly meaningful. Happy with Buck? No. But I am unhappy at the prospect of anointing Mr. Bennet as the Democratic candidate for that Senate seat from now until ever-after. IF he is elected, then he will be back in 2016 as the incumbent, and again in 2022, maybe 2028, for who knows how long. He will become the longest-lived, the only, permanent memorial, so to speak, to Guv Whatsisname. WHEREAS, if he loses his first go at elective office, there seems a reasonable chance that Democrats from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, can come up with a Democrat to run in six years. At least they can spend some time trying to enlighten their fellow citizens.
However, back to the points at hand. Assuming that harrydoby, having numbered them, intended the list to be in order of importance, that would be my first objection–the priorities. Beyond that:
1. Abortion. Do you really think or fear that if Buck goes to Washington, that abortions will become illegal? Do you really think this to be a prospect with a Democratic president in a position to fill any court vacancies? I don’t. I do think this is an sort of sideshow issue meant to stir passions on both sides and to divert attention from the much, much more important issue at hand: the economy.
2. Immigration. This is another diversion. OF COURSE, undocumented workers should be given a reasonable route to citizenship, but at root this is also an economic issue with a large dash of racism. (Actually, I’d say it’s racism posing as economics.) I don’t think Buck is going to have much/any influence on this (or any other) issue, and none at all with a Democrat in the White House. Rather better than Democrats step out and make their sentiments known; would that I heard this from any Democratic campaign, any campaign at all. Silence/consent and all that.
3. Imports/Exports. Harrydoby seems to be saying that rising healthcare costs are driving jobs overseas. First time I’ve heard this theory. Currency manipulation by China strikes me as a more likely culprit. Where does harrydoby and others stand on punitive tariffs to offset the impact of Chinese currency undervaluation? Haven’t even heard this discussed, although Comrade Geithner seemed to be cozying up the idea this week.
4. Social Security privitization. Old, old idea, never went anywhere, even with a Republican majority in the Senate and a Republican in the WH. Reason: it’s anathema to older voters. Much more to the point is dealing with the demographics of the society, notably the impact of baby boomers. Do further steps need to be taken, e.g. raising retirement age, making benefits need-dependent? Privatization is not the issue here.
5. Economic stimulus. Finally, in fifth place, we have the issue that, in my view, deserves 1st place (and maybe 2nd and 3rd as well, just to underscore its importance). AND, it is precisely on this point that I turned sour on Comrade Bennet at the start — his joining with Blue Dogs in Feb. 09 to insist that Obama’s stimulus proposal was too large. Now, Benet is first out of the box (among Dems) in joining Republicans in opposing a further stimulus. A Blue Dog through and through,k evidently. And on the related issue of regulating the financial industry, do we imagine that it’s purely coincidental that members of that club sent big buckeroos to Mike earlier this year to keep their good friend in office? Is Mr. Bennet in the running for Mr. Financial Reform of some year or other? On the topic of the economy, we have two choices: we can take Bennet at his word, paid for and broadcast over the airways, that he opposes stimulus and spending; OR, we can wink and nod and imagine that once elected, he’ll pivot and start acting like a Democrat.
6. Energy. Is this a big one for Mike either? Sorry, musta missed that ad. I personally would have put this in 4th place (just behind economy, economy, and economy) given its impact on the war(s) in Afhanistan and Iraq-=-missing from harrydoby’s list and from any other dialogue I’ve found lately– but it just doesn’t seem to register hugely on the Colorado Senate race.
Will the country be better off if Democrats retain control of both houses of Congress? By a slim margin, probably so, but given the current Just Say No attitude of the Republicans, and the Hope that we can all hold that the president knows how to Just Say No as well, I have little optimism that much, if anything, is going to change in the next two years. Meantime, I think it’s useful to consider how to retrieve the Colorado Democratic Party from the grip of DIMOs with a view towards making some serious progress in ’16.
THAT was the HOPE some of us held passionately a mere 24 months ago, and that we’d like to hold again! Bro Bennet ain’t exactly part of that picture.
Yes you’re right on all your points. But the bottom line is whoever is a Senator from Colorado will be owned by the banks & energy companies. The Senate is where they insure that their interests are not seriously threatened.
So the question is not can we get a Senator who does not work to emasculate the financial and healthcare bill – we can’t. But what we can get is someone who will, under the constraints of those who fund their campaign, will work for us. And Senator Bennet does, I believe, try to do the best he can for us under those constraints.
Also keep in mind that education is likely to be a major issue this year, and Senator Bennet has a lot of experience on education. Again, that is a big help in crafting the legislation.
Yes the choice is not perfect, but there is a very distinct difference.
He just wrings his hands.
I spent most weekends toward the end of the ’08 election primarily walking door to door and occasionally phone calling.
I don’t know where you got your bitter streak from, but I am really tired of your accusations of other Polsters that are totally off base. (The accusations, not the Polsters.)
You’ve been here long enough to know that David is very involved in our democratic process, yet you feel the need to make snide remarks.
Ditto Steve Harvey, and others I can’t recall.
You make intelligent contributions to this forum, then dilute their reception with your finger pointing and baseless accusations.
I think you need to spend less time in the cold nights watching stars.
I’ll continue to have my opinions, whether you like them or not.
Sorry if that deflates your self-inflated ego.
Go pick on someone who cares.
Don’t I recall reading that you are a religious man? Do I mis-recall? If so, sorry. If not, I will ask what your Jesus/Buddha/Mohammed/Holy Book says about being unkind to others.
Can we get a more desirable candidate six years from now?
Re Bennet and education. I’m asking: Was Bennet’s experience in “education” meaning teaching, avoiding drop-outs, etc., or in financing the DPS? Was he successful at the latter? I find it curious that in his ads, he describes himself as “a businessman,” not an “educator.”
I agree with the latter part of the statement; however, I would be careful how you use words like “us.” The word “us” is frequently used to describe people who share a narrow set of values and beliefs that you also share. However, it can also be used to describe a broader group of people.
(practicing in anticipation of Pols new posting policies),
just when I’d about convinced myself that I could (yet one more time) hold my nose and pull the lever for Bennett instead of undervoting my conscience, you come along and have to make sense?
Now, I’ll waste another glorious Indian summer afternoon thinking about Bennett while I work in the yard, instead of just reveling in the day.
You galloot.
Colorado is a centrist state, sometimes leaning blue and sometimes red. A candidate from your so-called wing of the Democratic party wouldn’t win.
If Buck had any centrist appeal at all, he’d be running away with this race. But he’s a wingnut, which is why I think he will lose.
Stomp your foot, hold your breath, whatever. If you want a Republican senator, vote for Buck. If you want a Dem, vote for Bennet.
It really is that simple.
While JO may not believe Udall is from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, by any measure, he is a liberal through and through. So was Gary Hart and so was Tim Wirth. To say that a liberal can’t win in this state is nonsense.
The term “democratic wing” is arbitrary and is merely used to seperate “us” (whoever they are” from “them” (whoever they are).
More importantly, if Senator Udall was seen as holding views of his House district he would’ve never gotten elected. Senator Udall had no choice but to change his Senate platform: e.g. his support for allowing hunting in Rocky Mountain National Park,
liberal to vote on.
See, JO, the problem with the list is that it is ranked by GOP and Ken Buck’s priorities, not mine (except as you say, my fears of them coming closer to reality with a Teahadist in office).
A vote for Bennet will likely re-sort them more to your liking, even if you don’t think it matters. Or as it seems, your notion that it is better to burn the entire house down rather than fix up the old homestead.
As for rising healthcare costs helping send jobs overseas, yeah, that’s an observation that I have noted for the past decade. A large company with which I have much experience has had a domestic hiring freeze for almost a decade.
Given the vast disparity in loaded costs per employee, that has meant when a person leaves the company here in the US, unless a current employee willing to transfer can be found, the new hire must be based somewhere “over there”. Since employee salaries have also been essentially frozen for much the same period, the only significant delta is the 17% annual boost in healthcare premiums.
Although, listening to some Democrats, it’s entirely possible to get the impression that abortion is their #1 issue as well.
But there is also this: Two years ago, I practically shivered listening to Obama. It was a feeling I hadn’t had, listening to a politician, for a long, long time. HOPE for CHANGE precisely captured the motivation of hundreds of thousands, millions, of students, adults, antiquarians, to go all-out for Obama. People were motivated to vote FOR Obama, and for the rest of the ticket, because we thought there would be, could be, change.
Republicans balked big-time, hateful bastards. Reaction should have been, “Screw ’em, we’ll get out there again–and again, and again, and again, as long as it takes–to make the Obama Change come true.
Oops! Didn’t happen that way. Michael Bennet isn’t the whole answer/problem/issue, but he’s part of it. In this state, the D-CO came to stand for Dull-Colorado. Was he Ritter’s idea? Obama’s? Hickenlooper’s? Who knows. A more dreadful campaigner I can’t imagine. Don’t recall him even alluding to New Energy, Humane Immigration, hell not even New Jobs as a result of policies that Democrats are going to ram through. (Admittedly, I’m not exactly glued to his ads during the few hours that I’m looking at the TeeVee, but if these positive messages are there, I’m missing them. What does penetrate my skull is “vote against Buck,” much like your post.)
Plus, as I keep saying over and over, he started running with the Blue Dog pack as soon as he got a chance. Now he campaigns as “a businessman” who knows all about balancing the books. To me, that sounds a whole lot like some flavor of Republican circa 1954.
As for health care and jobs going overseas: okay, an observation you’ve made at your company. News to me, like lots of things are. Unfortunate company to which you refer, all ’round. Question: Do you think the health care bill passed by this Congress will reverse their policy in this regard? Is it going to reduce the cost of health care, such that the company is going to bring employment back into the USA? FMI, where is “there” in this company’s case, and what’s the health care situation “there”? (Again, I’d argue that health care is a right that should go with education and Right Lane Closed Ahead projects on your favorite interstate highway, not a cost of doing business, but that’s another argument for another day.)
I still think currency manipulation is a much bigger issue, certainly as far as China is concerned. Maybe the company you have in mind is doing business in some other country, but as far as the overall economy of the United States is concerned, China is the One Ton Egg Roll, so to speak.
Some of us keep working for that dream, JO< and the toughest challenges we are running into is the dream-killers within our own ranks — people like you and David Sirota who discourage everyone from doing anything.
“If it is 100% left, it’s not worth having” is a great recipe for disempowering everyone who voted for Obama.
What dream?
Are you aware that Mikey Bennet gambled with people’s retirement funds … and they lost?
You seem to happily give them away to Ken Buck.
JO — You have literally been bashing Michael Bennet since the day he was appointed, first on Square State, then on polls. Your attacks have been consistent, sometimes irrational, and always exaggerated. What did he do to you personally that made you hate him so much from literally Day One, before he even had his first vote?
Did he run over your cat? Steal your girlfriend in the seventh grade? Fire you at DPS? Seriously — what could make someone hat a legislator since before they even legislated, especially one who is in their own party? I would like to know.
to tell him the DREAM Act ought to stand by itself, not as part of a defense authorization. His guy told me it wasn’t Bennet’s; it was Harry Reid’s deal. So, Bennet sponsors a bill that potentially violates America’s sacred promise to the military, but he says the violation is Harry Reid’s fault?
Who is double-talking now? What a wimp!
I missed a biggie:
7. Yes to more suffering and shorter lives. Ken Buck’s position on stem cell research would condemn millions to suffer from painful and debilitating diseases such as Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, spinal cord injury, heart disease, stroke, arthritis, cancer, and burns.
Please feel free to add anything else I might have missed.
OldBen, still think your vote won’t make a difference?
you’ve made up your own facts, and they do not represent the truth. Your whole list is bunk.
Oh, and scan down to about 23:04pm. You’re Exhibit A.
Tens of millions of American women have postponed graduating from high school or going to college because of an unintended pregnancy as young women. That number would rise exponentially if Buck and his allies overturned Roe vs. Wade, or implemented more restrictions on it. Granted, sometimes they went back to school, but many of them never do. And yes, I think no matter how much they love their children, there is often resentment and sadness for what “might have been”/ what their lives/careers might have been. When I counseled suicidal people at a crisis center years ago, I met many of them.
New economic reports say an additional 10% of people in this country are in poverty, and a full 50% are children. Does Ken Buck honestly believe the increased poverty rate that would be caused by women with few resources being forced to carry pregnancies to full-term would not be accompanied by suffering? There would be mountains of suffering.
It says:
Way 1: math. Let’s take the lowest “exponent” of 10 million, which is 10 million squared (for the seriously challenged, multiply 10,000,000 x 10,000,000). Are there that many people on the planet? I didn’t think so either. So, what is the correct number?
Way 2: Conceptually. On top of “tens of millions of women” who postpone graduation in order to have a baby (hint: there are about 4,000,000 people born each year in the United States), several “tens of millions” more would join that line if it weren’t for the right to have an abortion. Question: how many abortions are performed each year? Ten million? I didn’t think so either.Objective stats are sorta hard to find, but in 3-4 minutes of Googling I came up with this from Centers for Disease Control: “In 2000, a total of 857,475 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC by 49 reporting areas. This represents a 0.5% decrease from 1999, for which 861,789 legal induced abortions were reported from 48 reporting areas.” I’m sure more recent stats are available beyond page 1 of Google results.
OK, a significant number, but even so, we’re grossly exaggerating by a factor of 10 or 100, or 100 million. BUT, might that not be an indication of how our minds work? I thought so too. Fugggedabout two other aspects of this discussion:
Fact 1: Ken Buck will not be able to ban abortions if elected. And on the other hand, if a majority of voters in the United States clearly demand that this procedure be banned, it will happen, whether I Like Mike is in the Senate or not. But it’s not a real factor in the here and now.
Fact 2: By introducing this into the discussion, Ken Buck diverts attention from more meaningful issues, such as economic recovery, energy policy, continued improvement of health care… et cetera. And by focusing single-mindedly on Mr. Buck’s ploy, certain posters play right into his hands.
I shall repeat my mantra one more time: Economic policy and only economic policy is at the absolute dead center of any political discussion in a democracy. Perhaps someone here can explain in some loving detail how the two Senate candidates differ in this regard. Let’s start with this question: “Should the federal government launch projects in order to increase gross demand in order to stimulate hiring? OR, is there evidence that ‘trickle down’ spending, via tax cuts, will do a better job at this? OR, is this none of the government’s business” If we’re still idle on a sunny Sunday morning, we could proceed to: “Does Michael Bennet favor repealing Bush-era tax cuts on incomes >$250k?”
you keep coming back to the idea that it is better to kill babies than to allow them to interfere with a woman’s life. You know how to prevent most unintended pregnancies, don’t you? Did you fail at that?
When you hear about poverty statistics, remember they are not counting transfer payments – food stamps, rent supplements, free legal services, outright gifts of $$, and free health care. That, my dear, is a lot of money.
I have no problem with early abortion when the alternative is ruining a woman’s life. I also believe Democratic policies of contraceptive-education prevent far more unintended pregnancies than the “hell-fire and damnation” guilt inducement approach of the radical right. In fact, there is a lot of evidence to support that.
Begin here:
http://www.advocatesforyouth.o…
do you have any problem with destroying human life?
Especially the lives of people who have been born, are breathing, thinking, walking, talking and communicating — all proof they are sentient beings.
I don’t believe two cells that just merged are a sentient being. Life happens somewhere in between. I am not G-d, nor do I play her on tv. I don’t pretend to know exactly when a collection of cells can feel pain or has it’s first thought or awareness it exists. I think it is safe to say it is well into pregnancy.
You can stop deliberately slandering my name anytime, Marilou.
They really don’t know, do they? It’s appalling.
The Republicans can’t see past winning all the way to governing.
To be fair, neither did the Democrats.
they think government (governing) is the problem, so when they do it poorly, they get to reinforce that negative meme in our sub-conscious. It has been working for them since Reagan.
Reduce size of government.
Lower debt and deficit.
Restore sanity to our tax and spend systems.
Help create an environment so the private sector can create jobs.
Help reduce government overreach like Obamacare.
Not be a yes man for Democrat interest groups.
Get a grip! The tax burden for all Americans is lower than it has been at any other time for the past 50 or 60 years! I bet you don’t even pay any income tax, and still you whine. The truth is most people don’t pay any federal tax, or very little if any.
And you talk like someone who has been very lucky with their own health insurance. But putting yourself in someone else’s shoes who can’t get healthcare, or can’t afford it even if they could get it- that’s beyond you.
Th eonly government overreach in this country is the truly obscene size of the military-intelligence portion of the budget. And the worst part of all that is we get so little bang for the buck. We can’t win in Iraq, Bush had seven years to catch Obama, and let him slip away (probably by design) at Tora Bora. Wast a colossal waste of money! We spend more than the entire rest of the world on our defense spending, and for what? We still get bogged down in two wars we can’t win!
So go cry me a river marilou. When we have sanity and balance in our spending priorities, maybe then I might consider your POV worth listening to.
So, to help the small number who have trouble getting health insurance, you have to institute health control on everyone. Why?
better mortality rates, lower infant death rates. Check all of our health care rankings compared to European countries that have socialized health care. Now imagine what we could do with our superior medical work force and superior medical technology. We would far surpass those European countries instead of trailing them in every single category except for costs. We win that one.
Of course we’re NOWHERE near socialized medicine in this country. At all. Even if we had the public option we STILL wouldn’t be anywhere near socialized medicine.
http://online.wsj.com/article/…
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/BA649
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/in…
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/…
Thank the Dems and LBJ I’ll be on Medicare in 7 months! In the meantime I get my minimal care at the indigent health services center. It’s wonderful to wait over a month for an X-ray of a broken hand, isn’t it?
Welcome to America!
contrary to all evidence proving the exact opposite. And marilou would rather insult all of Europe than admit America isn’t star-spangled spectacular at everything.
Not in medical care for all, not in cutting edge telecommunications technology, not in green energy, what?
Military technology, social inequality, making war, I guess.
It’s very, very sad. The “Can do, will do” attitudes after defeating The First Republican Great Depression and World War II are long gone.
The majority of the budget crisis stems from entitlements and the defense. Fixing this is not a matter of saying “entitlements bad, defense good.” (or the reverse), it’s scaling back both.
Are you really willing to defund the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and reduce the overall defense budget, including veterans benefits.
Are you really willing to scale back Medicare and Veterans benefits.
Unless the answer to all of these is yes, I’m calling B.S. on the platform of reducing the deficit.
are you kidding? what do you really think we’re doing in Iraq and Afghanistan anyway? Pax Amaericana my ass!
It is our brutal imperialism and hubris that gets us in trouble in that part of the world to begin with. It’s time to try a completely new approach, one not based on drones and cruise missiles and mercenaries (yes, we’re using them there. We’re too cheap and lazy to fight our own wars without hired help).
jpsandscl, I agree to a certain extent from the standpoint of foreign policy; however, my original point wasn’t that defense is the root of all evil. I do think defense serves a legitimate purpose.
I’m very skeptical whenever I hear someone claiming they want to reduce the deficit. The reason is fairly straightforward: entitlements and defense cumulatively account for 60-75% (depends on who you talk to) of the problem. It goes without saying that these are political suicide to go near.
How many Democrats do you know that are honestly willing to scale back Medicare, to make it solvent? How many Republicans do you know that are serious about making the defense budget solvent ( which would likely mean cuts to veterans benefits)?
Social Security is thankfully, relatively straightforward to fix: i.e. basically raise the retirement age to match updated actuarial projections of lifespan.
and what legitimate threat do we see which has us spend more than the rest of the world combined for our defense needs? It smacks of paranoia to me to think that we are so threatened that we need to arm ourselves so overwhelmingly to meet these “threats”
And hubris comes into the picture when we start thinking of ourselves as the world’s cop, policeman to the many armed conflicts which are constantly occurring around the globe. This is why I think Pax Americana is a crock (sorry JFK).
And finally, worse than our own spending is our support through the DoD and the State Department of military arms sales around the globe. Not only are these sales often destabilizing in and of themselves, quite frequently we have to go in and depose the tyrant to whom we sold those arms in the end anyway (think Noriega, Manuel and Hussein, Saddam to name a few examples).
We Americans love to think of ourselves in the grand remembrances of our past great deeds, rescuing the world (or at least Europe…) from the clutches of Naziism.
But those myths of our collective psyche don’t really hold so true today. There is no great Nazi threat to civilization. There is no existential threat to capitalism from the Communist hordes any more. So we conflate those threats of yesteryear with today’s much smaller threat posed by radical extremists as represented today by Al Qaeda. We use the same responses to this much smaller, more diffuse threat- overwhelming military force, as though we can defeat them on a battlefield of our choosing.
We have been hoodwinked by the military-industrial-intelligence industry in our nation to accept whatever it tells us it needs to keep us “safe”.
is a horrible, socialized system that loses $60 billion a year to fraud and waste. It destroys the freedom to choose. If people want their “insurance” to help, they can only go to government-controlled doctors.
The government spends nearly $12,000 per person, per year. The individual spends another $3,500 – $8,000 for other insurance and drugs.
Just think what could be done with $16,000 – $20,000 per person if people were in charge of their own health care, and government was out of the health control business.
Except you.
Medicare is the health care delivery system with THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF ALL SYSTEMS in America. People on Medicare have MORE doctor choices than on private insurances with their PPO lists.
And it sure beats the charity care I have to seek since I don’t have a “real” job, taking care of my old mother saving ungrateful assholes like you the Medicaid funds to do it.
But facts never meant anything to you, did they?
has the highest denial rate of all health “insurance” sources in America. Get rid of PPOs and their cozy deals with doctors and hospitals. Let people pay their own way up until some deductible is reached.
If some cannot, then help them with the initial cash needs. Let people be in charge of their own health care instead of government being in charge of health control. Introduce competition in insurance and health care choices and you’ll see prices drop and quality increase. Witness the plastic surgery and eye correction markets. Guess what? No insurance or government in those markets.
How’s that government-funded charity clinic workin’ out for you? Is that what you want for everyone? How is it that you can suck off the government teat for your health needs but have a computer and Internet connection? I suppose you have cable TV too? How about a nice new car?
where do you think the Internet originated? It was a huge government research program! Thanks for supporting government investment in R&D and helping the general economy marilou.
he has a well-studied student. Truth and facts don’t matter to you. Solutions don’t matter either. Just whip up the fringe with your false rhetoric to get them frothing at the mouth. Then you might get in power to really screw them and then blame your opposition for their screwing.
Nicely done. clap, clap…
can’t say anything without using his favorite word. So limited.
You can’t. You’d need to have a clue.
of Cold War spy games per le Carre: MI6 vs KGB vs CIA–playing desperately to win, plant an agent here, uncover a plant there, to what end? Was the USSR about to drop a bomb? Was the US or UK? No. It was a game to win with no particular larger meaning outside itself.
Meantime, real problems, real issues, go unaddressed. Let’s talk about
freedomabortion, ignore jobs. The political process is becoming, has become, irrelevant.When I find myself agreeing with you time after time. You just nailed it.
David has learned how to be almost as annoying and pompous as you.
I find both very intelligent and wonderfully involved in our political processes, very passionate but grounded in knowledge and reality.
We need people like JO to push the envelopes of convention, and I’ll say, also on the right even if there is a dearth of positive thinkers there presently. She is also one of the most creative writers I’ve, um, read. Even when I disagree, I enjoy her flair.
I remember how annoying the bragging of young Cassius Clay was. But eventually I realized that although totally lacking humility, he wasn’t wrong. He was, indeed, the best.
And you ain’t so bad, yourself, 2.0.
Ya know, getting that 51st state incorporated is a lot of work — the State of Denial.
are going Green.
are going Bennet.
one of my roommates was an ardent Norton Repub. He is fully on board with Ken Buck. I haven’t heard a single Norton supporter switch to Bennet. Kudos to you, Norton supporters. You’ve showed real class.
Perhaps that is because of your well-documented talent for not listening?
What reference do you have for saying Norton Republicans are going Bennet? Don’t you know we want no part of that socialist?
And Marilou, where did you get the “Many Romanoff Dems are going Green” tripe?
Have you ever even talked to a “Romanoff Dem”? Did somebody just come up to you and hand you a manilla folder with that info, or did BJ share that revelation with you?
And since Buck is also a misogynist, I think quite a lot of Norton voters will find Bennet easier to support.
Hey, how did that unity rally between Norton and Buck go? WHAT DO YOU MEAN IT NEVER HAPPENED!!??