U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
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) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
September 27, 2011 05:33 PM UTC
58 Comments
There’s a gentleman outside protesting you, goes by the name John H Kennedy. Would you please send your Secret Service guys out and stomp his ass?
Thank you, sir.
Car 31
I would like to counsel against targets, crosshairs and other violent imagery
Freedom of speech is for those you strongly disagree with. It doesn’t require any protection for speech you find agreeable.
as you know David, would not protect anyone from a punch in the schnozz by a private individual. That is probaably why folks like BJ and JHK and Mark G are likely more careful with their words in private
with a suggestion that the most powerful government official in the country send his security detail outside to rough up someone who disagrees with him.
I was making the distinction myself. Or, I thought I was
Do you believe that “stomping his ass” is the correct response to peaceful protesters outside your speech? Or do you side with the First Amendment’s guarantees of free speech and freedom to petition the government?
Apologies
Best laugh I’ve had all day.
Bucharest this time of year is lovely
Have you READ his diaries?
If we’re proposing new renditions, I’d prefer a coherent one.
I think it left the building when we were promised $ 2 gas.
Stomp his butt. Jeez, we’ve got a lot of sensitive PC-ers around here.
What plans do you have to reign in and limit the expensive and damaging military industrial complex?
You promised and you have not delivered.
Maybe it is small steps that they are no longer being tortured for ten year old info?
Didn’t you support torture techniques for bogus info when Cheney was giving the orders?
as it does not work to extract valid information.
I don’t believe in the “war” on terror. I believe that we should have civil trials for those “arrested”. If we don’t have sufficient evidence for a jury to convict, then let them go.
+100. Well said.
http://www.coloradopols.com/sh…
Civil trials don’t result in convictions or acquittals.
As opposed to military trials.
Congress passed legislation that made it impossible for the President to close Gitmo. So, talk to your congresscritter! Even if your congresscritter didn’t vote for it, they should be trying to reverse what passed previously.
Obama could have made an end run and brought the “prisoners” to the USA for civil trials.
Alternatively, he could have “flown” (cf. Argentina military dictatorship) them from Gitmo to the ocean.
Interesting perspective.
Do you think your rational style of government where all parties are considered stakeholders in the short and long term solutions to our most intractible problems is working and do you foresee a time when Republicans will want to work with you and through cooperation and compromise develop consensus policies that benefit all the citizenss of our country both rich and poor?
Will you work to design a campaign financing system that is workable, will remove the gigantic influence the rich presently hold, and has a prayer of getting through Congress?
And if so, what’s the basic design of the plan?
SCOTUS is the problem.
In your second term you may have the opportunity to select 3 new supreme court members. Do you have anyone in mind, and what would be your goal with these appointees?
before “Citizens United.”
I think that decision just emboldened opponents of campaign finance reform.
have the infamous Citizens United decision so that’s kind of water under the bridge for now.
SCOTUS is the problem.
A new and better mix on SCOTUS won’t necessarily, or even probably, overturn standing decisions but the sooner we get a better court the better.
Since the current majority specifically and systematically overturned several standing decisions to reach their Citizens United ruling, the Citizens United decision should be given no respect of precedent. It would be tragic if a future, different minded court maintained that error due to precedent.
Just saying a better court isn’t all we need. We need a lot more.
We are rushing headlong into another Great Depression. What are you going to do about that?
Your much-touted “overhaul” was more like a propping up of the existing patent process. According to the Kaufmann Foundation, startups are “not everything in job growth–they’re the only thing.”
We’d have more startups if they didn’t have to worry about retaining lawyers to ward off patent “trolls.”
Was peckish, much appreciated.
In theory, people who get a little more in their net pay each pay period will spend that money immediately.
Delivering large checks in lieu of payroll tax reduction is less stimulative, because some (perhaps many) people would either save the money or use it to pay down existing debt.
A tax reduction was (and is) an easier sell than a cash payment. And, the payroll tax is a very regressive tax, so reducing the tax is a step in the right direction to restore more progressivity to the federal tax system.
I agree that the payroll tax deduction is the most efficient way to get money into people’s hands and then into the economy. My problem is threefold:
One, most people don’t realize that they received the break. Improving the consumer psychology is essential to improving the economy. When they get these breaks in $20 or $30 weekly dribs and drabs, and don’t even realize it, then I don’t see how their mood improves.
Second, giving people a large check would improve their outlook. And, I think it’s unclear whether the money would be spent or saved. I sponsored a diary on this topic about a week ago (this is a shameless attempt on my part at revisiting the issue via the backdoor). When large checks were written in the past there was evidence that the personal savings rate immediately increased. But, that’s not to say that the money wasn’t spent in the succeeding weeks/months.
Third, I especially dislike cutting the SS taxes. When do you think the economy/unemployment rate will be sufficiently recovered to eliminate this tax break? I think the reason most Republicans are indicating support for this idea is to get rid of Social Security.
Here’s a rule of thumb: Whenever the GOP agrees with you, you better think again.
Isn’t that the knock on the GOP, that they’re opposing things they used to support just because Obama is proposing them? There are no perfect solutions, that can be realized, at least. Do we want to fix things to the extent we can, or blame the other guys for things going to hell?
I don’t trust those scumbags. So, if I somehow end up on the same side, I want to really, really think about why that is.
In this case, I think they are agreeing to the SS payroll cuts with expectations that they are never reinstated which ends up gutting Social Security.
Though if the payroll tax cut is so unnoticed by everyone, hard to see how they’d make a big fuss about letting it expire, especially since they were more than ready to let it expire until the jobs speech … I think they’re giving it some tepid support so they can say they went with what they thought would work and didn’t reject the entire jobs plan.
but it looks like Republicans want to let the payroll tax cut expire. This is surprising if you think they care about taxes being low, unsurprising if you think they just hate the shit out of the middle class.
far more than halfway, sometimes just a hair shy of all the way, toward a deal with the Republicans, with no significant reciprocity on any of the most vital issues from them, are you ready to be more aggressive in using some of the unilateral weapons available to the presidency.
How does a mandate without the availability of an affordable public option do anything but keep decent coverage for those of us who are not covered by an employer too costly while enormously increasing the profits of private insurers at our expense, especially at the expense of young healthy people getting started in life?
WH press office issues journo credentials to reporters & photogs along for the trip.
Credentials have a neat little graphic packaging the trip stops in WA, CA, and CO (noted in white).
Anyone see a problem ?
nice catch VanDammer.
Rogue staffer !
The President is a SQUARESTATER! (They’re our rivals!)
…I mean, if he preferred Pols, he’d know WHICH square state…
They’re just a bunch of ignorant, opinionated, ideologues.
Oh wait a minute…
We all had so much hope during the spring of 2010 when your win was assured after you took out Hillary.
But now after orchestrating the mortars industry bailout (aka as market clearing M&A of Maxine Waters-Barney Frank Mortgage banking buddies), spending a Trillion $ on your stimulus program failing to get Tim Geithner to close down Citibank, and diverting billions of other tax payers dollars to your community organizing friends; leading national economists say the economy has slowed significantly.
The results have been, well, uninspriring. The labor market has slowed due to no appreciable job creation. You’ve clearly razed the national debt in a fashion that would make a No Doc loan recipient jealous, radically hiked unemployment from 8% and brought an economic uncertainty rivaled only by Hugo Chavez himself. Your policies have placed the economy perilously close to another recession.
The overall chances of another recession are rising and as a back drop your policies have put America on a path to clearly higher inflation while wages decline or stagnate.
But all is not lost, there is hope that the actions of individual households, wage earners, and businesses suggests that the economy would like to continue to grow, but at such an incredibly slow pace that the numbers are more like those of a recession.
What will be the benefits of your tax hikes – proposed and in process tax hikes? Will Obamacare deliver by bending that cost curve downward or should I take out a second to go to medical school so that I too may abuse this abortion of a system you call national healthcare reform?
If you’ve ever had hope for the accomplishments of a Democrat, this is the first we’ve heard of it, darling.
vowing to secede if the will of the majority in 2008 was recognized and policies other than Trickle on Me economics were implemented.
Why on Earth did you forgive dog-torturer and killer Michael Vick? Does Bo know about this?