U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(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) 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

50%

40%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
March 03, 2012 04:02 PM UTC

Weekend Open Thread

  • 50 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“It’s not what you pay a man, but what he costs you that counts.”

–Will Rogers

Comments

50 thoughts on “Weekend Open Thread

  1. This is our current list of Rush Limbaugh advertisers as of 03/02/12. We have tried to keep our list updated as sponsors come and go but cannot guarantee the complete accuracy of this list. Part of the problem of keeping a list like this is that some of his radio sponsors or web sponsors may not even be aware their ads appeared on his program/website because these ads are sold in blocks to various programs, stations, and websites.

    This list now identifies [4] advertisers we know for certain are sponsoring him. We are currently in the process of verifying other businesses that should be added to our list that display ads on his website.

    Due to the recent deluge of complaints Sleep Train pulled their advertising with Rush. If you wish to thank them, please use this link to find their contact information.

    http://www.topplebush.com/boyc

    The site also includes contact information for Clear Channel Communications.

    Let your voice be heard.  Take 30 mins. out of your day and let the sponsors and Clear Channel know how you feel.

    Rush may love the controversy, but in this economy, I’m not so sure sponsors like Century 21 will.  

    1. I am always floored that people believe the crap that is spewed from Limbaugh.

      Although that Topplebush.com site makes me cringe like Michael Moore is waiting for an answer from me after asking a question that doesn’t make any sense.

    2. I am so outraged (again) with Rush that I failed to do some additional research. Politico posted a story on advertisers bailing on Rush which says Century 21 was not a sponsor

      Real estate company Century 21 also came under fire, but the online attacks apparently were undeserved.

      “In response to multiple consumer inquiries – @CENTURY21 is not a sponsor of the Rush Limbaugh radio program. Not sure where this started,” the company tweeted.

      http://www.politico.com/news/s

      Apologies to Century 21.

    3. attacking the Georgetown law student, too.  He doesn’t want contraception covered, but of course, he wants Viagra covered.

      http://thinkprogress.org/media

      Sorry, Bill, I don’t want my tax dollars paying to support your limp . . . . ooh, I don’t have enough brain bleach to even go there.

      1. I was always curious about ‘Moonies.’  

        Read the article there on Rush, or better yet the comments.  Holy Rush-on-a-Viagra-holiday; the more Dems can draw the crazy GOPers into this particular feud the better…  Remember when the concern was that the 2012 election would be all about the economy and that would drag Obama to defeat?

        I think Rush wants Obama to get re-elected, actually, as its much better for his business.   Or maybe he really is this stupid?  In any case, on this one especially the man is a gift to the Democrats.  

          1. And ratings is really all he’s good for. He was unable to stop McCain from getting the nod in 2008 or Obama from winning the election. Not that he cares as long as his loyal demo keeps his career going. But GOPers are still scared to make any but the mildest most qualified criticisms because they’re afraid of losing  votes from  his vicious, hateful, grumpy old white guy demo.

            I listened to the show for a while for ads from local advertisers.  I heard ads from Ralph Schomp Honda, United Health Care and something like TryInfoFree.com. before I just couldn’t listen anymore.  He still seems to think you take a pill every time you want to have sex and keeps harping on how that girl should just cut back on the sex to save on birth control. It’s nauseating.    

            1. Because in Rush’s case, it’s true.

              He’s still mad that the gummit took away his viagra:

              Limbaugh, 55, was detained for more than three hours at Palm Beach International Airport on June 26 after he returned on his private plane from a vacation in the Dominican Republic.

              .

              .

              The conservative radio host had been released without being charged and investigators confiscated the Viagra.

      1. cyberspace when I stumbled onto it but some site had the number of advertisers who had pulled their ads as of today up to 9. I’ll try to refind it.

    4. For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.

      I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone’s bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.

      My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.

      1. In his pocketbook.  Sponsors leaving his show threatens his $400 million contract, which doubtless has performance and/or penalty clauses if he doesn’t produce big numbers, both in listeners and profits for Clear Channel.

        After two days of vilifying Sandra Fluke, it’s unlikely he misunderstood the import of his own words.  

        Mr Limbaugh had faced repeated calls for an apology after claiming that the student must be sexually promiscuous because she supported a contentious measure which would have forced religious institutions to fund birth control for their employees.

        But instead he dialed up the rhetoric, first saying that Ms Fluke should film herself having sex and then claiming that she ‘had boyfriends lined up around the block’.

        However, after three companies pulled their advertisements from his show and the President called Ms Fluke to express his support Mr Limbaugh finally backed down on Saturday afternoon, three days after his initial remarks.

         

      2. There is nothing you can say that’s going to keep me and thousands of other women (and men) from putting pressure on your remaining advertisers and Clear Channel Communications.

            1. Everyone of those guys suck!  If I were you, I’d give strong consideration to going by my middle name . . .

              On the bright side, the name “Scott” doesn’t seem to have hindered the political aspirations of any of those Dicks.

  2. Not sure if this is hitting the MSM yet, but last night on SLOG (the blog of Seattle’s The Stranger) I was following how the GOP minority in Washington’s state senate, aided by three conservadems, used parliamentary games to suddenly hijack the senate (who are winding down their session) to introduce a SECRET budget. (For those who know about such things, it was the “9th Order.”)

    While this ambush couldn’t keep the over-200 page bill from a reading and being made public, they were able to pass it 25-24.

    Now, Washington has a Democratic governor and a TRUE (not simply in name) majority in the state house, so it’s unlikely to actually become law. But it will probably result in a special session.

    More to the point, it shows how the Republicans don’t give a fuck about governing with any sense of trust or respect for those not on board with their vision. It’s their way or else. Fuck democracy. Fuck you. We’re the GOP and we know better – if you won’t just give in, we’ll force you to go along. Fascists.

      1. I think it would be more accurate to say that our electric cars will be powered by a mix of fuels. Most electric power is from coal (45% as I recall), but most of the growth right now seems to be with combined cycle natural gas plants.

        One way of looking at it would have cars powered by the whole mix of power in the United States. Another would be that they would be powered by whatever new capacity is built to supply the new demand, which will be a function of what happens to be least expensive to build/run at the time demand increases.

          1. I think we are in furious agreement on this. I was just making a point about electric cars not necessarily being coal powered, which I think most people would be in favor of since coal has a lot of negative impacts even if carbon dioxide is ignored. Electric cars: “Something for everyone!”

            If someone is a nuclear power advocate then electric cars represent a practical way to get nuclear power into transportation. Solar and wind power, same idea with a different chorus. And down the line for every sort of advocate including people who’s main concern is efficiency.

            The only large downsides are their high upfront cost and the increased rare earths demand.

    1. Reposting davebarnes’ image in reply:

      The simplest way to control the sometimes massive size of these images is to simply add size=”xxx” to the img tag. In this case, we used “500” for 500 pixels wide.

      We would appreciate it if images posted to comment threads, which are fine in and of themselves, be limited in width so as not to severely distort the comment thread and post. This can affect readability greatly and is the subject of complaints.

      Thanks,

    2. to look at developing a vehicle that runs on fracking fluid.

      Given the millions of barrels of that shit that we’re pumping into the earth’s crust there’s plenty to go around, and the O&G industry is always looking for any new reason to drill-baby-drill.

  3. If you ever injected truth into politics you have no politics.

    Will Rogers

    If you make any money, the government shoves you in the creek once a year with it in your pockets, and all that don’t get wet you can keep.

    Will Rogers

    Instead of giving money to found colleges to promote learning, why don’t they pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting anybody from learning anything? If it works as good as the Prohibition one did, why, in five years we would have the smartest race of people on earth.

    Will Rogers

    It’s a good thing we don’t get all the government we pay for.

    Will Rogers

    It’s easy being a humorist when you’ve got the whole government working for you.

    Will Rogers

    The income tax has made more liars out of the American people than golf has.” WA #17, April 8, 1923 (also WA #99, Nov. 2, 1924)

    “There is some talk of lowering (the income tax), and they will have to. People are not making enough to pay it.” WA #17, April 8, 1923

    “Our financial ills will never be settled till you fix it so every man will pay an income tax on what he earns, be it a farm, grocery store or municipal or government bonds.” DT #2068 March 21, 1933

    “We got a long-sighted government. When everybody has got money they cut the taxes, and when they’re broke they raise ’em.” DT #1770, March 27, 1932

    “It costs ten times more to govern us than it used to, and we are not governed one-tenth as good.” DT #1770, March 27, 1932

    “I don’t see why a man shouldn’t pay an inheritance tax. If a Country is good enough to pay taxes to while you are living, it’s good enough to pay in after you die. By the time you die you should be so used to paying taxes that it would just be almost second nature to you.” WA #168, Feb. 28, 1926

    “Now they got such a high inheritance tax on ’em that you won’t catch these old rich boys dying promiscuously like they did. This bill makes patriots out of everybody. You sure do die for your country if you die from now on.” DT #1767, March 23, 1932

    “They have passed the big inheritance tax, and that gets you when you are gone. You used to could die and be able to beat taxes, but not now. The undertaker don’t go over your body as carefully as the assessor does your accumilated assets, and he gets his before the undertaker. They have it on these big fortunes now where they pay as high as 60 to 70 percent of what they leave. That’s mighty expensive dying when it runs into money like that, and you won’t see ’em dropping off as casually as they have been.” WA #594, May 13, 1934

    “Finding things to tax is becoming quite a problem. You see when taxes first started, (who started ’em anyhow?) Noah must have taken into the ark two taxes, one male and one female, and did they multiply bountifully! Next to guinea pigs, taxes must have been the most prolific of animals. WA #594, May 13, 1934

    “Get a sales tax, small on necessities and large on luxuries; then a stiff inheritance tax on the fellow that saves and don’t spend. That will get him either way. A tax paid on the day you buy is not as tough as asking you for it the next year when you are broke.” DT #1599, Sept. 7, 1931

    “The sales tax is the best and most equitable tax. The gasoline tax, which is nothing but a sales tax, has proven painless, productive and punitive. Everything we buy should have its equal proportion of tax, outside of cheap food and cheap clothes.” DT #1701, Jan. 5, 1932

    “If a thousand shares of stocks or bonds make nothing, you pay nothing. But on a thousand acres of land you pay enough to support half the community who own no land and pay no taxes.” DT #1908, Sept. 15, 1932

    “Why don’t they use a sales tax? That is the only fair and just tax. Have no tax on necessary foods, and moderate priced necessary clothes, but put a tax on every other thing you buy or use. Then the rich fellow who buys more and uses more certainly has no way of getting out of paying his share. Collect it at the source, that is at the manufacturer’s. Don’t depend on the retailer. Put big taxes on everything of a luxury nature. You do that, and let the working man know the rich have paid before they got it and you will do more than any one thing to settle some of the unrest and dissatisfaction that you hear every day. No slick lawyer or income tax expert can get you out of a sales tax.” WA #99, Nov. 2, 1924

    “The high income tax come pretty near passing in the Senate. Only lacked about six votes. So it won’t be long now. Well, there is millions and millions that are not making it, that would be glad to give up 99 per cent if you would let ’em earn a hundred thousand or more.” DT #2395, April 6, 1934

    “You can’t legitimately kick on income tax, for it’s on what you have made. You have already made it. But, look at land, farms, homes, stores, vacant lots. You pay year after year on them whether you make it or not. DT #1798, April 28, 1932

    “There is a tremendous movement on to get lower taxes on earned incomes. Then will come the real problem, ‘Who among us on salary are earning our income?'” DT #1051, Dec. 8, 1929

    “The whole trouble with the Republicans is their fear of an increase in income tax, especially on higher incomes. They speak of it almost like a national calamity. I really believe if it come to a vote whether to go to war with England, France and Germany combined, or raise the rate on incomes of over $100,000, they would vote war.” DT #1435, Feb. 27, 1931

    “The crime of taxation is not in the taking it, it’s in the way that it’s spent.” DT #1764, March 20, 1932

  4. Romney makes very good points on the fundamentals and I have to say I agree with him. And I mean that sincerely. For all of you Dems here, please take a look at Romney’s compelling logic at Romney’ urges Obama on healthcare

    In July 2009, Mitt Romney called on President Obama to require Americans to buy insurance as part of his health care plan, using “tax penalties” as a backstop – in other words, the individual mandate that Republicans virulently oppose.

    In a USA Today op-ed titled “Mr. President, what’s the rush?,” which is also available on MittRomneyCentral.com, Romney urged Obama to “learn a thing or two about health care reform” from his Massachusetts plan that contained the same policy, and touted it as effective.

    I join with ArapaGOP in urging you to give Mitt’s view here a fair look.

    1. as a bug, not a feature. But not to worry, the Romney2012 version has had a massive firmware upgrade and had new talking points installed. If you insist on comparing this model with the 2009 beta version, you will void your warranty.  

    2. 3 years ago is not today. If he said “This Republican is proud to be the first governor to insure all his state’s citizens” today I’d be impressed.

      I wish there was more dialog like this in politics. There was no name calling, no hyperbole. It was kinda strange and refreshing.

  5. Forbes and other “conservative” outlets were crowing about how he’d once again gotten away with “illustrating the absurd with the absurd”.

    No, if he was apologizing, he would have abstained from his very caged and carefully crafted written statement saying nothing and directed his remarks to Ms. Fluke and her parents.

    He’s a bully, plain and simple. Yes, he probably has some serious issues with the opposite sex, and yes, he doesn’t seem to have the slightest bit of knowledge concerning female biology or anatomy, as witnessed in his sophomoric, frustrated depictions, but at the core Limbaugh is a bully.

    In every bully there’s a coward.

    His non apology is obviously in response to the growing connection women are making to him and his republican minions.

    As leader of the republican party, he has pissed off 51% of the voters.

    No conservative that listens to him cares who he insults, what he says does to damage people or things, and how he viciously attacks women, minorities, poor people, or just about anybody else not white and conservative, but there is some recognition that pissing off 51% of the vote over a single social issue that’s been resolved for 40 years isn’t good politics.

    The coward in Limbaugh isn’t sorry, and he didn’t issue an apology. But he did, by issuing that non apology admit that some body’s getting nervous about how what he says is where people perceive the modern republican party to be.

    Meet the Press might be interesting this morning. There’s no way this is not going to be talked about.  

    1. Rush is the head the Republican party.

      Yes, it will be talked about. Written about. People will talk about those who write about it.

      In the end, her’s what I don’t get:

      how is it that reproductive heath  is a  women’s girl’s issue?  Every man I know was reproduced – all birthed from a woman.  It’s a human medical issue.

      When we allow the R’s to split it up as a woman’s girl’s issue, it makes it far too easy to allow half the population to ignore it. And a significant number of those to make fun of it.

      It’s a medical issue. Yes, it’a bout life, but it’s a medical issue.  Why do we allow them to trivialize it as just a woman’s thing?

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

67 readers online now

Newsletter

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