U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Michael Bennet
50%
50%
50%
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) Brian Mason
60%↑
30%↑
20%↓
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%↑
30%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
September 20, 2010 03:54 PM UTC
129 Comments
Several threads from people posting here that not to vote presents an opinion. OK. But why do they want to post on a site about the upcoming elections if they’ve decided none of the choices are worthwhile?
I guess they care so much about the election they want to sway voters over to … ?
For the record, I suggested that not voting is a way to voice displeasure. Often referred to as the “under vote.”
I did not say that I would, or have ever, done it.
If you think a lack of good candidates means political discourse should end, I feel badly for you.
So you feel that, if the boss gives you an “impossible” task you shouldn’t, at least give it your best? You talk, you tell her, Hey, Boss, it’s liable to turn out less than optimum without more staff, without more funding, without the support of that bastard in finance. But when she still insists it has to be done, you just sit on your hands and sulk?
You feel that, when the doc says your liver is fried, you won’t change your habits, exercise more, lower yor animal fat intake and quit smoking and drinking? You’ll just throw up yor hands and start singing, Swing low, sweet chariot?
You’ll scream, I wanted a pony and all I got was this lousy Scrabble game? And just go upstairs and sniffle in your room?
Please, d, this isn’t a one-chance-only deal. Unless you’re my age, you’ll see another election, and maybe a pony. But not if you keep insisting on being on the naughty list.
Buck up. All the candidates on the left of very, very right of center are decent, good people, capable of being educated, coerced and badgered. The election is (was) just the beginning. After the election is the hard part. Make ’em do what you want.
Reading all the comments on the other thread, I just do not get not voting as a “voice.” No, not voting puts you in the same category as the millions of non-participatory citizens who don’t give a shit or are too lazy to register.
At least, vote for another candidate! Green, Libertarian, write in, ANYTHING!
To paraphrase my recent Buckley quote, “Vote for the most liberal candidate who can win.” And in Colorado in 2010 for the Senate, that’s Bennett. This wet dream of people rising up against Buck and his ilk after six years and electing a “real” liberal is just as real as any, well, wet dream.
If I were a Dem right now I’d be so pissed that I totally wouldn’t vote. I recommend that strategy.
and you think undervoting, though Hick will still win, will assure Buck’s ticket to DC.
For probably the first time in my voting years (since ’72) I’ll probably vote a straight Dem ticket. The Dems have the best candidate in every race. But, I may vote for that ACP candidate in CD5. I will be voting against retention of our judge for all the good that does.
I routinely do not vote when there is no opposition. I don’t want an unopposed candidate to believe they have no reason to be concerned about their performance.
.
to count all the votes for that CD-5 Candidate.
I assume it’s because, even though I’m wrong on just about every issue, from your POV, I am at least willing to listen to someone other than Club for Growth.
Thanks.
.
and have voter registration links at their websites… at the same time RW zealots are urging Democrats NOT to vote.
The funny part is I havent heard republicans urge people to vote for 15 years.
LOL
If you’re eligible to vote, I don’t honestly have a lot of sympathy, when you vent about how nobody cares.
for two legislative races in my county. So I can either vote for two unchallenged candidates that I can’t support or I’m an under vote. What would you do? (I thought about writing in Ralphie but he’s declined to serve if elected…)
if their is literally only one horse in the race.
Many times I have not voted in a race. What is the point of running up the total for an unopposed candidate (especially if you are not in love with them)?
I wish we had Nevada’s “none of the above”.
First the rise of “factions”, which Jefferson so deplored. Yeah, the two party “system.”
Then, we need a national, or at least rotating regional primary voting day.
And last, we need First Choice, Second Choice selection at all levels of voting. With computers, it’s a piece of cake. I think Australia and some US jurisdictions are doing it.
In this way, no one has to feel that they are throwing their vote away. Vote Green, then Dem. Vote Lib, then Republican. Whatever…
If you’re referring to Federalist 10 it was more along the lines of Madison.
…but then, I recall when I saved the world…
🙂
It might be more fun than voting for Ray Scott.
Seeing my name on a write-in would have the entire Elections Department rolling on the floor for a good half hour.
with Diebold electronic voting machines?
Not that it’s relevant for me since I imagine I’ll be doing mail-in voting. I appreciate being able to vote in the comfort of my easy chair with a fine beer in my hand … but … I really miss interacting with the folks staffing the neighborhood polling center …
But if you want to vote in a write-in candidate on one of the Mesa County machines, you can ask an election judge for a list of the registered write-ins so that you can spell their name correctly.
Then, when you go to vote for that office, you’ll see a write-in button along with the candidate choices. If you click that button, the machine will bring up a typewriter keypad on the touch screen, and you just type the candidate’s name.
Remember, though that a candidate has to register to be a write-in candidate. A written-in vote for a non-registered candidate is the same as an undervote.
The point you claim to miss seems patently apparent to me.
….through the tubes came what appeared in the nameless ghost this morning…being mine’s via the tubes I shan’t quote it.
By Bill Armstrong and Hank Brown
Should the nation’s colleges and universities be subjugated by federal and state government? That’s what is going to happen if the U.S. Department of Education goes ahead with its proposal to turn both private and public schools into “authorized” institutions.
The plan, scheduled to go into effect in November, entails a heavy cost in time and money. But what is more ominous is the whole idea of political supervision of higher education.
As a practical matter, the department’s power grab carries with it an implicit invitation for various pressure groups to seek legal mandates requiring colleges and universities to implement their pet theories about curriculum, degree requirements, faculty qualifications, teaching methods, textbooks, evolution, phonics, ROTC, climate change, family policy, abortion, race, sexual orientation, economic theory, etc.
If adopted, regional accreditation will be denied to any institution that has not first been given “substantive” state “authorization.”
Virtually all colleges and universities are already licensed or registered by one or more states. Many are already registered to do business in all 50 states, which means they are subject to state fraud and consumer-protection laws, have a registered agent within the state, and can be sued by students, vendors, employees or others who have a complaint against them.
But this is not what the Department of Education has in mind. Although details are sketchy, the department’s proposal calls for “substantive” oversight, not “merely of the type required to do business in the state.” Moreover, this legal authorization must be “subject to adverse action by the state,” and the state must have “a process to review and appropriately act on complaints . . . and to enforce applicable state laws.”
In other words, the state will be required to set standards, establish guidelines, and enact rules and regulations by which each college and university will be judged.
This assault on academic freedom and institutional autonomy is a slap in the face to regional accreditation agencies whose peer reviews have been bulwarks of integrity and academic quality for decades. Loss of accreditation is literally a death sentence.
The department’s new regulatory scheme doesn’t do away with regional accreditation; it adds another approval layer, state “authorization.” Some states will undoubtedly exercise this power with restraint, at least at the outset. But who can doubt that various interest groups will soon begin to clamor for ideas to be mandated by law as requirements for college classrooms?
Moreover, do we want the nation’s colleges subjected to political supervision by federal and state government? Our nation is well-served by public colleges and universities, many of which have managed to remain somewhat free of explicit political control, wrestling with important ideas, competing for students, faculty, staff and philanthropy.
Education Department officials also plan to subject private institutions to the same kind of state supervision as public colleges and universities. If such control of these schools is not unconstitutional, it ought to be.
For-profit colleges and universities are cheating students, government officials allege, lying to them about job opportunities for graduates and falsifying loan applications. These are serious charges, and if true, deserve swift punishment. But these actions, even if true, are already criminal acts under existing law. If the Department has knowledge of wrong-doing, they should call for prosecution. There is no demonstrated need to put all schools, public and private, religious and secular, nonprofit and for-profit, on the government leash.
Legislators must start sniffing around this mess, ask questions, and demand justification. If that happens, this plan is doomed. Write your congressman and senator, today.
and to our students if the US Dept of Ed could and would do all that Armstrong and Brown fear.
State and local govt often are too concerned with promoting revisionist history and imposing a dumb it down curriculum to try to show success.
Too much decentralization and you get science classes teaching that the earth is only 6,000 years old, the earth is flat, etc.
I thought you wrote something substantive but it turns out you fell back into your C&P habit. Which especially for The Great Unnamed Bird Cage Edition is not good for Pols. Why don’t YOU write something?
I know nothing about these efforts, but on the surface, it sounds like HIPPA: A great solution in search of a problem.
Please notice that the renegade “colleges” and schools are all, ahem, private institutions. They smell all that student aid money and will do anything to get them some. Lie, cheat, barely teach, abandon the graduate. And all usually at a cost far higher than at a public university.
and saw a response that showed I didn’t need to read Lib’s comment. (Not that I really need that – it’s Lib, after all – but it’s validating to see others call bullshit.)
Seriously tad, can’t you excerpt rather than paste an entire op-ed? I know you know how to use block quotes.
If people can be bumped, or suspended, for being silly pranksters as long as someone whines enough, consider this my complaint that libby cuts and pastes whole articles repeatedly, doesn’t properly indicate they are quoted, etc.
This is outrageous.
No attribution. No link. Who is posting these?
Suspend Lib’s account NOW.
He said he got it in an email this morning. How should he link to it?
…if he’d used the quote function, you’d be ok with it?
That seems a little different than creating a login that looks like someone else’s screen name just to be a douche.
I create a pdf and link to it. That way people can see it in its original form. But I have a place to host it.
For the same reason.
Are you okay with his repeated violations of posting policy because you agree with him (or at least the things he’s copying and pasting)?
…are pretty tame in the scheme of things. He knows how to push buttons, but if you look, I think the majority of replies to him are insults.
This thing today I think is silly. He re-posted an email that he received, and I think that’s different than posting someone’s op-ed in a paper or something.
I wouldn’t know how to post an email and be totally sure that my anonymity was preserved, and if I were Libby, I sure wouldn’t want some of the crazier goofs here knowing anything about me.
were tame, too.
Personally, I don’t care – I didn’t even read it, as Lib routinely posts classic “TL;DR” comments and is one polster who, to date, has not made a single, solitary comment that added anything to the discussion. Not one, despite the occasional “wow, Libby, you just said something substantial” response he occasionally elicits. But I do grow weary of scrolling past his inane videos, swiped pictures, and copy-and-pasted 5000 word essays.
My only concern is that if Pols has decided that they need to lay down the law, then I want them to do it fairly and all across the board. If Lib gets the boot, it would be a net zero loss to this site.
Is it that whisky and teenage boys bit?
Find someone else to stalk, please.
I was a bit concerned how I went forward and certainly knew that some fellow bloggers would lose their minds. On the other hand we all operate under CPOls rules and should they feel this needs to be deleted then so be it.
I did not add any commentary … and now likey won’t as this thread has become an abortion. Maybe CPols should delete it, we can touch the issue in future months.
I know I’ll be ready … as the Democrats likely big forays will be to use administrative regulation to further direct (from the government sector) private investment – thus increasing business costs, lowering tax receipts and killing jobs.
Of course they should.
They asked us not to cut and paste from the Ghost, and not only did you do so, you did it without attribution or a link.
Putting that above your handle without attribution is plagiarism. You probably voted for McInnis, didn’t you.
It’s an op-ed piece, reprinted word for word from this morning’s Denver Post, which is a big no no.
And no, I don’t want to see him banned. I would like him to stop behaving as though he doesn’t understand how to blockquote and link to the original source.
Libby, that changes things. MoTR really nails it there.
Which actually is a little squirrelly, because doesn’t linking to the Enver-Day Ohst-Pay get you banned, too?
I didn’t read the paper this morning, so I didn’t know it was in there.
My bad.
The Guvs said THEY weren’t going to do it.
Can someone recap what happened with the fake bj account? I can’t see my comments anymore.
I had one response when it first appeared, and that comment is gone. Was there a whole lot of drama surrounding it? I haven’t been online for about three days.
The big BJ did nothing more than what The (little) Beej did in harassing S[redacted] H[redacted]. The Beej spent several days following up all of SH’s posts with inanities like “Are you a capitalist?” and “I know you are, but what am I?” until SH lost it.
In the current case, someone followed The Beej around, making sense of his nonsensical puppy love ideological ignorance, and that account was banned. The big BJ was actually pretty sharp and funny.
The lesson I get from this is, if you are going to harass someone, create an account name that is very different from your target. Oh, and be really really stupid.
Maybe THIS is what CO Pols meant by “something fun” that they were going to propose?
This is really funny, given who wrote the article. Ask the faculty at CU how much support for academic freedom they got from Hank Brown – with no better evidence than the guy he hired as the university’s chief academic officer – so inferior academically that no department would give him tenure (which is a STANDARD in research universities).
For Brown to now stand up for academic freedom is laughable.
barracks/housing questions are not an issue no matter how many times BJ posts that gays are like women. Maybe he just needs more time in the real world. That cloistering of home school prevented him from learning a lot. My biggest concern with the home schooled, lack of social skills.
n/t
http://cbs4denver.com/news/Colorado.governor.candidate.2.1921406.html
I wish CrazyTom™ a speedy recovery as we need him the campaign.
…I think you have to stake him thru the heart, cut off his head and fill his mouth with Holy Wafers.
That, or drop a ring in a volcano. One of those…
Trying to even out the odds by taking Tom outta the race..,,,,,
Now, wouldn’t it more accurately be “I failed to yield to a woman as I was pulling out of a McDonald’s”? I have been trying to imagine a scenario where the motorcycle pulling out of a McDonald’s would have the right of way.
By the shoes.
Tom was not taken because of his quick reactions.
There remain many unfulfilled duties for Tom, he will be directed with Christs’ hand to bring benefit to mankind through many acts of leadership.
Seeez, that sounds so PTL doesn’t it … kinda make some friends here quiver.
If God was “watching over” Tom, why did he/she allow Tom to be hit at all? And when someone is killed in an accident, does this mean God was looking the other way?
This would imply that whenever anyone dies, God’s ok with the outcome. Thus it follows that God’s ok with abortion.
though it’s sometimes hard to tell.
No boldface.
he/she wouldn’t have let him drive into McDonalds.
Really, Tad, I can appreciate some of the things you are able to write.
It’s that damned C&P and video link stuff.
Unlike Beejster, I think you have potential.
The entire show was entitled “Life After Death” and dealt with numerous brushes with guilt, remorse and the struggle with PTSD.
http://www.thisamericanlife.or…
Now we all have choices, but choice under Ombummercare is now between higher costs and less service … and its not a choice really, more like a forced decision.
As Kaiser reports:
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.or…
Yep, jump to the link, there’s not one good report out their on how bending the cost curve is helping anyone. In fact, many are being hurt through Obummercare requirements.
This failed policy only helped the insurance companies firm their position in the marketplace. A63 (Caldera’s) of course is here to help that with a little cure for the free choicers.
As we head into election season, it looks like the insurers are slamming down on the Democrats … will the people feel the pain of Obummercare before Oct 13th — who knows.
Please keep in mind who wants the Republicans to void out the health care reforms. Insurance company middlemen
These health care increases are there to upset the population so they vote Republican.
Ins. Co. and CEO With 2008 Total CEO Compensation
Aetna, Ronald A. Williams: $24,300,112
Cigna, H. Edward Hanway: $12,236,740
Coventry, Dale Wolf: $9,047,469
Health Net, Jay Gellert: $4,425,355
Humana, Michael McCallister: $4,764,309
U. Health Group, Stephen J. Hemsley: $3,241,042
Wellpoint, Angela Braly: $9,844,212
Yeah Insurance companies are feeling the pain. as they report increases in PROFITS at the same time increasing premiums.
I read that too! NO one even the insurance companies’ own data shows the rate increases are unwarranted.
Please keep in mind who’s taxes will reset when the the rates return to the Clinton era percentages. (insurance companies CEO’s)
President Obama will still protect those making under $250,000 from any increases.
The Insurance company health care Middleman
is;
1) Increasing rates and ANNOUNCING IT LOUDLY just now a month and a half out from Mid-terms.
2)increasing the paychecks of all the executives to cover their impending tax increases…
republicans will scream and tout this BS as they are the supporters of “profiting off of sickness.” ie; insurance companies. NOT health care.
Another outcome of Obummercare, I guess
“Obamacare” is stupid (it doesn’t actually tell doctors what they can/can’t do, as Palin is fond of lying), but “Obummercare” sounds so flat-out 2nd-grader-ish that I think you, and all conservatives, should use it as much as possible to sound as moronic as possible.
Here’s a little reality check: let me know when our saner conservatives (LB, Barron, H-Man) start saying “Obummercare.” You should definitely hold your breath waiting for that to happen, L.
Sorry, Ray. That was a meatball right over home plate.
.
Obummercare.
did I spell that right ?
.
So ok, let’s devolve American political discourse further! My contribution: do we prefer (a) possible future House Speaker John Bummer, or (b) possible future House Speaker John Boner?
LB/Barron/H, don’t let Lib drag you down. He’s not part of your “team” any more than JO or Cronk is part of mine.
responses
In favor of just insults and making up words.
So…what if a majority of Middle Eastern agreed with a majority of Americans that, while totally legal, the Ground Zero site isn’t the most appropriate for this particular group to build this particular mosque?
I thought this was a fantastic piece in the WSJ.
Ajami also had what I consider to be an especially trenchant and appropriate line farther into the story:
So in the absence of an election where it’s so important to try to label the opposition as racist, bigoted, small-minded, etc., perhaps the common sense answer to folks of all stripes might be that this isn’t the best idea, and merely expressing that doesn’t put you into one of the aforementioned groups.
There is also a great story at the end of the article that recalls a lesson in which Muslim conquerors chose not to exert a right which was theirs to exert, out of wisdom.
….on one hand, we had a Community Center which included a Mosque being built in an abandoned factory space in a semi-sleazy neighborhood, by a tiny sect of Islam (Sufi) that promotes tolerance and understanding within the US.
The Right-Wing Noise machine jumped on a non-stop jabbering bandwagon and threw out idiotic talking points that varied from slack-jawed stupidity to outright racism and sedition. Most were based on the unproven allegation that this was a foothold by Islamofacists to secretly undermine the Christian-ness of NYC, by some strange train of thought that a religious-based community center was actually a carefully planned insult to the city due to it’s proximity to the WTC.
The Iman of the Community Center dug in his heels, and it determined to build this center more than ever.
On the other hand we have a Uber-fundamentalist Christian Minister with a tiny congregation that announces on the web, in the media and to every camera he can shriek at that he is going to burn multiple copies of the Qu’ran as a memorial to all the people killed by the 9/11 Attack.
A great number of other commentators and Politicians condemned this dumbassery in the press, but no one managed to organize a hostile, loud and stupid crowd to gather around said religious site and harass the minister and his congregation at their place of “worship.”
Said minister and congregation continued to repeat their crazy threats to burn these religious texts, in spite of direct pleas from various political and military leaders who said their actions would cause measurable and grievous harm to the United States, here and overseas.
This action was circumvented by the brave efforts of a lone Iman of Central Florida, who journeyed to (obviously) a hostile and aggressive Christian Congregation, made a heartfelt and direct plea to said crazy minister and congregation, which ended the plans of burning religious texts.
If I compare the two, it sounds like the Christians are channeling their inner Crusader to shriek, smash and burn to contradict hatred and racism, while the Muslims are using the ideas of tolerance, forgiveness and love to contradict hatred and racism.
Thoughts?
You can’t use either of these groups as representative of their respective religions.
The idiot in FL has 50 morons in his church, and a relationship with the Phelps folks, who have basically nothing to do with anything I’ve ever read in the new testament. Both groups would be abhorred by the vast majority of Christians worldwide.
Imam Rauf IMO intentionally intended to be controversial and asshole-ish is not the bridge-building victim he makes himself out to be, but that’s just my opinion. I also never saw any opposition to him building the mosque there as being Christian-based, or anything like this:
…although I’m sure it’s a useful canard to the anti-Christian elements of the left.
As the survey demonstrates, I don’t think you can use Rauf as being representative of Muslims worldwide (or at least in the Middle East) either, and I think the piece in the WSJ clearly demonstrates that.
Did you see my pick for the cup and my concern over the prize you’re offering up?
….who goes further in the playoffs – Avs or Kings?
I’m offering my official CCM West Point Army hockey jersey for my team. However, in the process of the season, you’re welcome to wear it anytime. I’ll be happy to reclaim it at the end of the season when you pay up.
The other stuff was just thread-hijacking NHL speculation.
BTW, are you going to the Frozen Fury? As much as I hate Vegas, I just might go.
I went every year for a long time, but with the little ones, I just can’t swing it. The wife and I promised each other that we’d go next year sans varmints.
Your jersey is too valuable to wager with me, and I couldn’t even enter into a bet with you over it. I’d love to see it, though.
What do you want me to put up on my side? Maybe we should do this via email so all the politicos don’t get….
Ah, fuck ’em if they can’t take a joke.
🙂
PS this is a horrible year for me to take your bet, but ok.
….Bronco rants are routine on this website, so why not have a ongoing rant about the ONE TRUE SPORT, hockey?
I’ll go take a picture of the jersey and upload the photo, and then you can decide if it’s value exceeds your ability to talk smack about the prowess of the Avs.
Either way, it’s available to borrow.
But cycling is the one true sport.
There is only one true sport, and that is the sport that God Him/Her/Itself made for Americans alone:
Baseball!!!
But baseball and hockey are games, not sports.
has a button on his website at michaelmoore.com which takes you the Cordova Initiative where you can donate $1 if you are in favor of building the interfaith center. I encourage all who believe in peace and the 1st amendment to do so.
I believe in peace and the First Amendment, but I wouldn’t go to Moore’s crappy website let alone give him any money.
They have the right to build there, I just think they shouldn’t, and that poll shows a majority of Middle Eastern respondents agree with me, and not you.
Do they not believe in peace?
I can’t parse what “58% saw it as a project of folly” really means.
It could well mean, since hardly any of the necessary funds have been raised, that it’s a publicity stunt which will never see the light of day.
From what’s available in your link and the related original Arabic source, it’s not so obvious that it means they think it’s insensitive to feelings about 9/11 and ought to be elsewhere.
that one poll is absolutely representative of how all middle eastern Muslims feel?
I’m sorry, but any opposition to any church being built anywhere is unAmerican. Every single time.
They can build it there, they just shouldn’t, especially if they are trying to “build bridges”.
I can express my opposition to the location, and move on. It’s out of my control, so it’s not this freaky-deaky first amendment issue the lefties are crying about.
Did you read the article? The ending of it was perfect.
but I did my best to look it up, and it seems to have come from an online poll on some web site, answered by 10,000 people. And as far as I can tell, nobody has actually bothered to translate the Arabic text of the poll to see what it was actually asking.
Just goes to show: virtually everything in the WSJ op-ed section is stupid made-up lying bullshit. I didn’t bother reading the rest of the article. There’s only so many times someone can lie to you before you realize any given statement is more likely to be a lie than the truth, and then it’s not worth sorting through for the useful stuff anymore.
just shows how little you value freedom of religion.
They can put it there for any reason they say, and not have to honor a word of that. As long as you value freedom of religion, you support it 100% and oppose it 0%. Everything else is beside the point.
It’s that simple.
This was in Politico today:
The questions I have are this:
He (and his 527s) have been hammering Leading candidate Ken Buck for months, but they can’t seem to really move the numbers, why?
Does the appointed one have a back up plan or back up cash to cull the numbers as things get closer to D-day?
Bennets negatives are 50%.
People generally don’t vote for people they don’t like.
Bennet is down 4% with only 3% undecided. His “I will outspend” plan, that worked in the primary, will not work in the general. I don’t know where he goes.
That is a problem Romanoff would not have had because he had a grassroots type campaign. Bennet’s buying an election only works if you have a lot more money than your opposition.
I believe this is scheduled to go on the air in the next couple of days (though I imagine they’d have to edit it down a bit).
Red-faced and irrational.
And I highly doubt he would be a tea partier.
and the Huffington Post with his “homogeneous military” weirdness from Friday, in regard to DADT repeal. In another thread there’s discussion about his plan, or not, to carry a social issues agenda to Washington. If he were in the Senate now, he’s just clearly said he would vote to keep gays in the closet or boot them out of the military, now matter how valuable they were in their jobs there. Sounds like a social issue agenda to me.
Definition: homogeneous — composed of parts or elements that are all of the same kind;
of the same kind or nature; essentially alike.
I have the vision. Our military should be all white, all male, all heterosexual, all Christian. Ooooookay. Blonde, blue eyes, broad shoulders? Now, why is that picture familiar?
Can’t tell ya how many times I’ve had arguments with right wingers only to have them end up sputtering ” but, but . . Clinton!” as they wander away.
How do you get them, and how much do they cost?
But they are teh awesome.
Watch out, LB! I’m sure there’s something biased about it!
Than they were floating at the top of the comments last week. That sucked! I’m glad they moved them.
but I haven’t seen them, and do not see them now.
I think I’m in love with my ad blocker software.
and a lot better than at the top.
Something has to pay the freight here for all the bandwidth we use.
Just wondering. I hadn’t seen anything, which is kind of strange.
I’ve asked twice on his Facebook page – and I get nothing but crickets. I think that’s the answer.
“It’s bad enough to have a cardboard cutout for a candidate, but he’s not even good looking.”
…he talks like Thurston Howell III on Gilligan’s Island.
Still, a decent guy I intend to vote for…
Dear God, kid, what in the world could have been so bad for you?
We fight, we bicker and insult, but please – if anyone here is ever contemplating anything so selfish and hateful as hurting yourself, plea email me and let me try to talk you out of it.
that a person considering suicide is thinking rationally.
Sad for his family.
You’re absolutely right.
I respect you, LB.
When you cross an important line and it is pointed out, you are ready to admit it and step back. I really appreciate you taking the time to reply to ModGal. Really, thank you.
(I used to have the same perspective you had in your original post above. Then I was confronted with a suicide attempt. I was pissed off at what I perceived as a selfish act. I was furious during the entire drive to the hospital. Now that I know more, my heart aches for that young student, and that event was over 10 years ago. I can only hope for the best for her and hope that I will be a better person if I am ever again confronted with someone considering suicide.)
For me, without getting too personal, it just hit home because I was so incredibly self-destructive when I was his age, and was very Wagnerian about all kinds of dumb things, and probably would have found it romantic on some levels to have ended my life.
And it just crushes me thinking of all the wonderful things I’ve experienced since then, and how small my troubles really were. That’s where I was coming from, and in this forum, it’s probably a totally inappropriate subject.
And I agree with ardy39’s comments that you know how to stand up when the situation calls for it.
That written, I thought about my comment to you all morning and decided that, well, we’re both right.
Yes, a person considering suicide is not thinking rationally, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t, if given the opportunity, at least try to reach out, try to help, or try to find the right words that just might make a difference.
There’s nothing wrong with trying to help. Really, there’s everything right with trying to help.
A new baby born to someone at Colorado Pols. I guess that is all I’ll say. Not my news, only my congratulations!