President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

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
May 15, 2012 03:47 PM UTC

Tuesday Open Thread

  • 101 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“If a victory is told in detail, one can no longer distinguish it from a defeat.”

–Jean-Paul Sartre

Tweet
Share

Comments

101 thoughts on “Tuesday Open Thread”

  1. Obama: Economy, not gay marriage, will decide vote

    The Associated Press

    WASHINGTON-President Barack Obama says it is “hard to say” whether his new stance supporting same sex marriage will hurt his re-election. He says there’s a major difference between himself and Republican challenger Mitt Romney on the issue, but says the economy will ultimately determine the outcome of the election.

    Read more: Obama: Economy, not gay marriage, will decide vote – The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/brea…

    Read The Denver Post’s Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/



    8-9% signed up for unemployment

    25% of Colorado adults without a job

    $5 gas

    $5 milk

    2. Where Do You Play World Of Warcraft?

      Home

      88.3%

      Which Playable Race are you part of?

      Troll

      8.6%

      What Profession Have You Added To Your character?

      Alchemy-Primary Profession

      20.4%

      What is Highest Level You Have Reached In World Of Warcraft

      Reached the Top level

      59.1%

      http://www.squidoo.com/world-o…

    3. Last two times I got gas it cost less than the time before. My Sinclair, granted the cheapest in my neck of the woods, had regular for $3.73.9 the other day. I got it for $3.76.9 the time before last.

      But hey, Romney said that Obama taking any credit for saving the auto industry was like him, Romney, taking credit for the Red Sox World Series Championship while he was governor so I guess ‘Tad didn’t get the memo: Presidents don’t have any control over this kind of thing.  No credit also means no blame. ‘Tad’s very own presidential candidate said so as I’m sure he’ll be reminded every time he tries to blame Obama for you name it.  Just one more of the gems that pop out every time the GOP head clown opens his mouth.

      1. I figured that would be the case. Summer is still coming, though.

        The funny thing about the Republican trumpeting of this poll is the fact that everyone is expecting a close election, and if that 7% is properly motivated, they’ll be the ones to tip the scales in November.

      2. There’s that whole pesky thing about the price of gas largely resting on the price of crude oil.  Luckily, Willard surely will be able to get the price of crude oil down.  Since he’s not just a presidential candidate, he’s a prophet.  Oh wait, that was Martin Sheen in the Dead Zone.  

    4. you post stupid fucking LIES that are refuted in seconds. Is is too hard for you to state the TRUTH. Is it impossible for you to deal in FACTS. STOP the LIES!

      Please find me $5/gal gasoline right now.  Tell me when & where the FUCK you’ve ever paid $5/gal gasoline or $5 milk.

      You are a moronic LIAR.  Every single post of yours deals in distortions, prevarications and LIES.  You accomplish nothing but make yourself seem more like an idiot with every single post.  You are a ridiculed ass boil to this forum. You have no worth to this forum.  

      Why the FUCK doesn’t ColPols have an IGNORE command.  Please ColPols, implement the Community Moderation/Comment Ratings functions in SoapBlox.  Can we please get rid of trolls?

        2. If a poster here doesn’t have enough self control to ignore another poster’s idiocy and has to have an IGNORE command or a ratings system to get by, maybe this isn’t the best place for that poster.

          It really isn’t that hard, folks, unless you are a blowhard who feels an incessant urge to “enlighten” us all.  

          1. there will always be someone who succumbs to the temptation sooner or later. If not ‘tad in particular (who I find easy to ignore only because he’s been around so long that there’s nothing new to respond to), then the next idiot who finds his way here.

            1. I just don’t want to hear them bitch in the next breath that they need a ratings system or an actual command at the ready that they can use in order to control themselves from replying to people that they disagree with or who post inane shit.

            2. perhaps a comment rating system would provide a quick means for new participants to judge the merits of a particular poster or more likely it would be ignored.  There are more esteemed and wise Polsters that bow to the besmirching bullshit that breaches this blog so we don’t even need more idiots to prolong the trolling.    

              I do try to ignore the likes of ‘turd and in moderating other blogs I’ve been active in guiding others in troll trap avoidance but  overarching continuous lying proves to prod my monkey.  I know well & good that every ‘turd post, every ‘turd lie is made to provoke and to distract but my patience has proven weak.  It is sad that such an abject committed liar gets his trolling rewarded with attention but that is fodder for the beast.  

              1. It really isn’t that hard, folks, unless you are a blowhard who feels an incessant urge to “enlighten” us all.  

                after this…

                it’s hard… n’t

                seemed like a good opportunity to tease you.

                never mind…    🙂

                  1. but, ever the opportunist when it comes to levity, I figured I would give you some shit about it. No harm, no foul.   🙂

                    I hope all is well w/ you. Are you planning a trip back over to the left slope anytime soon? We could schedule a meet-up.

                2. where Libertad lives–Hawaii. Because it’s the only place in the 50 states that is paying $5+ for a gallon of milk.

                  So now I really have no sympathy for him, considering he’s probably typing his babble while sitting on the beach soaking up some rays.  

                    1. If he’s living in Hawaii, I want to exploit that for a free place to stay, the next time I’m over there. I go to the Big Island every 5 years or so for 5 weeks at a time and renting a house for a month isn’t cheap.

                      In answer to your other question, I think I’m heading south for a few weeks after the election–New Mexico probably. Went down there last fall and just fell in love with the place. Between business here during tourist season and the election, I’ll be in full blown burnout mode by November. I’m going to be actively exploring some serious time off for 3 weeks or so, I think.

                      Any chance of you heading my way?

                    2. to the Womens’ March a couple of weeks ago (w/ my son and his little girl), so that constitutes one of about 2 annual trips to the big city. I am kind of a home body…unless there are palm trees.

                      I am always ready to go where there are palm trees. My beloved and I went to St. Kitts last winter. They don’t know the term “wind chill” there. Our guide said, ” well, I don’t know what it means, but I presume from the words you use it means something about the breeze being cool, am I right?”

                      Hilarious.

      2. It’s all in the clicks.

        Lib creates ’em. Pols sells ads on ’em. Nothing wrong with that, but, if you don’t appreciate his stupidity, as above comments advise just don’t enter the conversation. (Like I just did. But realize, VD, Pols gives me a cut, just like Ari, Middle and duke. Lib knows: It’s all about contract negotiation.)

        Nice indignation, though.

    5. @Libby,

      The only $5 petrol I could find was Premium at a few stations in Hawaii and Guam. And $6 for regular in Bethel, AK.

      Milk appears to be over $5/gal in Barrow, AK and on Guam.

    6. It was a civil unions bill, not “gay marriage.” It was supported by over 60% of Coloradans and by over 50% of even the Republican-controlled House. It passed out of three House committees with Republican votes before McNulty broke chamber rules and precedent by assigning it to the VETERANS AND MILITARY AFFAIRS Committee.

      And if you’re paying $5 for gas and milk, you’re um, not as intelligent as I thought.

      1. Would you please, please quit fucking with this idiot’s spin. He had such a good thing going there for a while. Until you had to go and point out his … horseshit.

  2. Boys and Girls, let us examine the difference between polling and elections.  Polls give information.  Elections give power.  Elections can be won by one vote and give enough power to impose an agenda.  McNulty uses power the way LBJ did.

    Polls may suggest that the public is in favor of same sex marriage; but elections suggest the opposite.

    1. If LBJ used power the way McNulty does, the civil rights agenda would never have passed. LBJ used his power to negotiate and work with Southerners uncomfortable with civil rights legislation.

      McNulty used his power to isolate civil rights legislation, twice, to appease his base.

      There isn’t much similarities between the two men that I can see Dwyer.

      On another note, while in the Senate, LBJ moved legislation through the process – some say he was a master at getting bills passed. You’re familiar with LBJ’s history, If I’m not mistaken.

      McNulty can’t pass gas without shooting himself in the foot. I’m not just saying that. Anyone watching this year’s House will attest to the fact it was poorly run, mismanaged. McNulty’s will be remembered as a weak leader who couldn’t get anything done.

      Very, very different than LBJ.

    3. … is such an awesomely non-condescending way to start a post disagreeing with most folks on this site.

      On the merits: I have no fucking idea which elections you think actually show that same-sex marriage is NOT supported by those saying so in polls. But then again, you have no fucking idea either.

      1. The first is 2010 in Colorado that gave the House to the Republicans by a one vote margin. You know the “down ticket” elections that gave the Republicans power.

        The second types are elections throughout the US that were ballot initiatives outlawing civil unions and/or gay marriage that overwhelming won.

        For the record, I disagree with the President.  I do not think that gay marriage is a state issue.  I think it is a federal constitutional issue concerning equal rights.

        I believe that eventually it will get to the Supreme Court…however, until or unless, there is a change in the current court, I do not think that there will be a ruling in favor of gay rights….this time around.

        1. government the power to regulate marriage.

          I disagree with the President.  I do not think that gay marriage is a state issue.  I think it is a federal constitutional issue concerning equal rights.

          I believe that eventually it will get to the Supreme Court…however, until or unless, there is a change in the current court, I do not think that there will be a ruling in favor of gay rights….this time around.

            Or save yourself the time and admit that no such enumerated power exists.  Thus, the tenth amendment reserves that power to the states.

          Obama, constitutional law professor emeritus that he is, is right on this point.

          1. At least, according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia:

            Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

            Now granted, it’s a leap from saying the 14th Amendment prohibits states from enforcing laws requiring racial discrimination in marriage to saying that the 14th Amendment protects gay marriage, but it sure sounds like the Loving Court said federal law trumps state marriage statutes.

            To me, the bigger issue is the Full Faith & Credit clause.  Gays who marry in one state, or who obtain the protections of civil unions in one state, should have their legal status recognized by and protected in other states, shouldn’t they?

            2. The 14th Amendment doesn’t set up state standards for marriage. It said all states must have equal protection of the laws.  In other words, states don’t have to protect marriage, but if they do they have to do so in a fair and equitable manner.  The California decision didn’t say California had to marry gays…it said the California initiative violated equal protection clause.   I agree with you, PH, that the key is the full faith and credit clause.   A gay marriage in Mass should be recognized in Colorado.  

                 So, loving didn’t say federal law trumps state marriage statutes.  It said the state statutes violated the 14th Amendment.  If Virginia had merely prohibited first cousins from marrying, as some do, a federal law couldn’t have voided that.    

          2. The 14th Amendment has a guarantee of equal protection of the law.  Prior to 1967, state laws prohibiting interracial marriages were legal. In 1967, the court found the Virginia law unconstitutional because it violated the 14th Amendment. That ruling invalidated all state laws that prohibited marriage between races.  I believe that ultimately a Supreme Court will find the same in regard to gay marriage.

            I think that Obama, constitutional scholar that he is, is in a bind. This is why:  His Justice Department is not defending the The DEfense of Marriage Act passed by the US Congress on the grounds that marriage law should be a state matter.  HOWEVER, if he were to be consistent, he would order the Justice Department to file a “friend of the court” brief supporting Proposition

            8 in California.  Proposition 8 prohibited gay marriage. A federal court found that Proposition, passed by a majority of voters in California, unconstitutional.  The state is appealing and this is probably the case that will get to the Supreme Court.

            Obama and his Justice Department, to my knowledge,

            have been silent.

            1. …at least base your opinion on the facts.

              Obama, constitutional scholar that he is, is in a bind. This is why:  His Justice Department is not defending the The DEfense of Marriage Act passed by the US Congress on the grounds that marriage law should be a state matter.

              Not so much, in fact not at all.

              Obama: DOMA Unconstitutional, DOJ Should Stop Defending In Court

              Attorney General Eric Holder said President Barack Obama has concluded that the administration cannot defend the federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. He noted that the congressional debate during passage of the Defense of Marriage Act “contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships – precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the (Constitution’s) Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against.”

              1. She genuinely wrestles with these things.  Like me, she’s a bit on in years and sometimes isn’t as clear as she wants to be.  But I respect her values even as I often disagree with her analysis.

                    2. You know what you need to do.  Prove what you contend.

                        My contention, in full, was

                      Dwyer isn’t a dumb ass, DaftPunk

                      She genuinely wrestles with these things.  Like me, she’s a bit on in years and sometimes isn’t as clear as she wants to be.  But I respect her values even as I often disagree with her analysis.

                        There is nothing to prove or disprove there.  I simply think the lady may sometimes get a bit confused in her presentation but more often than not presents respectable values.  To me the burden of proof is on those who would contend she is a dumbass, not on those of us willing to cut her a bit of dialectical slack out of respect for her accumulated experience.

                2. At least I read dwyer through. (As I do Daft) Neither are dumbassregressifuckapugliconshillassholes, and both gots good brainstuffs.

                  Now, onward with good conservation.

              2. http://www.foxnews.com/politic…

                Earlier Monday, Obama was taping an appearance with The View, where his announcement last Wednesday also came up.

                “A lot of this has to do with what’s called the Defense of Marriage act,” Obama said on the show. “It was passed originally when Hawaii started making noises about recognizing same sex marriage. The idea was we don’t want that drifting into the federal government and this is part of the reason why my justice department has said to the courts, we don’t think the Defense of Marriage Act is constitutional. This is something that historically had been determined at the state level.”

                Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politic…

                1. Repealing an act is legislative.  Obama is proposing the repeal as part of his legislative agenda if he is re-elected.

                  The Department of Justice being ordered by the President not to defend the law in court is different.

                  1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

                    by Ruth Marcus,

                    President Obama is walking a tightrope on same-sex marriage, teetering between his stated view that marriage is the province of the states and his legal position that refusal to recognize same-sex marriage can violate the Constitution.

                    The stance of the Obama Justice Department in the DOMA cases can, for now, be squared with the president’s states’-rights position. After all, in the pending litigation the department is arguing in favor of the ability of states to define marriage on their own terms, rather than being dictated to by the federal government.

                    But the implications of the Justice Department’s legal arguments point to an eventual clash with the president’s leave-it-to-the-states approach. In its brief arguing that DOMA is unconstitutional, the department said that laws discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation should be subject to “heightened scrutiny” by courts. That would mean such laws could pass constitutional muster only if they are “substantially related to an important governmental objective.”

                    1. Obama is rushing like mad to bridge the gap I pointed out some four or five posts ago.  

                      If he had been this deft at explaining  the Affordable Health Care Act or even Keynesian economics, we could breathe a bit easier about November.

      2. is such an awesomely non-condescending way to start a post disagreeing with most folks on this site.

        I do disagree with most people who will post on this issue because I am interested in the politics of it, not the merits of the bill.  Politics is about power.  You need to get the power before you can pass your agenda.  That is one of the most important things you learn in American Gov 101.  The other is how to get power in the US system.

        Babbling about how horrible McNulty is and how righteous the losers, accomplishes neither of the above.

        2. Most folks here don’t see the need to distinguish between politics and policy. Policy: too close emotionally? Politics: too obscure or distasteful? Maybe they’re inseparable?

          Of course politics is about power. But so is policy. Policy, either enacted or championed, does accomplish, and it promotes power. The obverse, which you proffer, is obvious.

          Now, how about respecting those whose passion is personality, idiosyncrasies, ideologies, beliefs, agenda, etc., and speak to them, not over them?

          And keep posting. You’re informative interesting.

           

  3. Dell Apologizes for Hiring ‘Shut Up Bitch’ Moderator

    Dell only succeeded in making itself look small when it hired an expert in misogynistic humor to MC a partner event attended by Michael Dell himself.

    …

    Christensen later asked “all (men) in the room to promise him that they will go home and say, ‘shut up bitch!'” Vejlo reported.

    Five CEOs Who Should Have Already Been Fired

    #1 – Steve Ballmer, Microsoft.  Without a doubt, Mr. Ballmer is the worst CEO of a large publicly traded American company today.  Not only has he singlehandedly steered Microsoft out of some of the fastest growing and most lucrative tech markets (mobile music, handsets and tablets) but in the process he has sacrificed the growth and profits of not only his company but “ecosystem” companies such as Dell, Hewlett Packard and even Nokia.  The reach of his bad leadership has extended far beyond Microsoft when it comes to destroying shareholder value – and jobs.

  4. So many things wrong here, you don’t even know where to start.

    But………

    First, when you consider Civil Rights for anyone a “divisive social issue”, you announce you’re ignorant of our democratic process, and are simply corrupt.

    Secondly, when you contort the process, to the point of subverting it, as Mcnulty did here, just to placate “the base”, you deny the citizenry that is paying your wages access to the democratic process.

    Finally, republicans constantly rail on how government is dysfunctional and incapable, then prove themselves absolutely correct on both when they have the gavel.

    When’s enough enough?

    It’s just really irritating when the very core of our society, our representative form of government, is so trampled on by a majority party that finds the very principles they were elected to protect the thing they’re purposefully destroying.  

    1. …but I don’t remember you posting anything like this about the Dems not passing Civil Unions when they controlled the whole enchilada.

      What’s the difference?

      1. The Dems had to keep in mind a) the then-extremely recent Ref I vote, and b) the fact that a few more years were needed to get more people thinking about this issue the right way.

        As much as you or any ‘pub would LOVE to pin this on the Dems, you can’t do it.

        1. Come on, Ari.  Did you really just post that?

          Either it’s the right thing to do, or not.

          You can’t damn the R’s for voting their collective conscience, and doing what they believe to be representing their constituencies, and in the same breath praise the Dems for putting off a vote she they could have ramrodded it through because they felt ‘people weren’t ready’.

          1. You’re not so naive as to suggest that the parties DON’T put idealism to the side in favor of pragmatism, do you? They’re BOTH in the business of winning elections. Disrespecting the majority of voters, even if it’s the right thing to do, simply is dumb politics. Do you think the Civil Rights bill of 1964 could have passed, in that form, even two years earlier?

            Here’s the thing, ellbee. The R’s played games here. Driven by conscience, or the will of their constituents (be interesting if you know of poll data supporting that), or whatnot, you are FULLY aware that it only came to this because McNulty tanked the regular session in order to prevent the bill from reaching the floor; then, when forced to deal with it anyway, assigned it to a kill committee instead of the one where it originated.

            If you really believe that the Dems’ prior inaction is even half as cynical, it’s just one more thing that proves to me that you see everything through a partisan filter.

            1. If it’s SO COMPLETELY IMPORTANT to the Dems, surely not just an election year gambit, then why didn’t they pass it when they had full control for a number of years?

              Also, if the results of Ref I (I had a pro ref I yardsign, so the more buffoonish, vile pollsters that are readying their ‘homophobe’ rants can just get back to whatever rock they normally hide under) was an indicator that it was too soon to push Unions through, when did that change?  Who gets to determine that?

              1. that this also went through committee in 2011. AND… this has been around for several months this year. I heard no noise from ‘pubs about that until one defected. Oh, NOW it’s a big ol’ election year gambit!!!1!!1!

                Give me a break.

                Now, what’s changed? People’s hearts, that’s what. One at a time, a few every day. Have you not followed the polls? Here:

                Here’s my challenge to you. The GOP spin that this is all a cynical ploy means that the Dems would NOT have attempted to pass Civil Unions if they had retained the House. Find me the evidence to support this, or at least make a logical argument that that’s what they would have done.

              2. Sen. Steadman answered that very precisely in his statement yesterday. Though I fully expect you and the rest of the hard-right to ignore the well-reasoned argument and keep shouting as loud as you can (aka, the usual strategy).

              3. As far as I can tell (I can go look it up if you want) public support for gay marriage became the majority opinion just in the last year.

                I’m so old I can remember when you’d cite a poll about what the majority wants as evidence that it should be passed. And even if in a representative democracy the polls didn’t matter, the fact that the majority of the state house was willing to vote for it should have meant something.

              4. Enabling civil unions shouldn’t be a party-specific issue, and neither party should be too proud of its past stances even if the forces for equality found early support as a minority voice in the Democratic Party. The fact is that this year civil unions not only had a majority of legislators in support, but polling has shown a majority of voters as well. It took a lot of work to reach this point, and it’s on the Republican leadership in the House for failing to acknowledge that they’ve finally been left behind on this issue.

                 

          2. I personally would have loved to see Dems pass this when they held all 3 reins from 2006-2010. But, they probably couldn’t. But times change and politicians all know which way the wind blows. Only a few years ago opinions on civil unions were at best evenly split. Now there are clear majorities that favor them.

            http://www.pollingreport.com/c…

            Now’s the time to move forward. We would have, too, but for one person who took it upon themselves to deny this issue a vote.

            The end result is that McNulty threw Republicans in swing districts under the bus. Republicans will deservedly lose their House majority.

          3. If they’d done so, we’d have civil unions right now. Instead, it was the House VETERANS AND MILITARY AFFAIRS Committee that voted against the bill.

      2. When Democrats controlled both chambers of the legislature, Gov. Bill Owens twice vetoed civil rights legislation. When Gov. Ritter was elected, we passed employment discrimination protections and second-parent adoption in 2007, housing & public accommodation discrimination protections in 2008, and designated beneficiary agreements and state employee domestic partner health benefits in 2009. Since the Republicans have controlled the House, progress has stopped. They’re right that we should have done all we could before they took the House, but they’re wrong when they assert we squandered our opportunities.

        ^The best retort to the non-sense argument of “how come the Dems didn’t do it?”, which is kind of like asking why Lincoln didn’t give black people the vote… One thing at a time.

        1. for folks to understand.

          Our State Assembly passed a domestic partnerships bill and sent it to the public as a referendum for a vote in November 2006.

          It lost–47% for and 53% against. On the same ballot, Colorado Amendment 43 passed in 2006 with 56% of the vote–an amendment that clearly defined marriage as being between a man and a woman and openly made discrimination against same sex couples the law of the land in Colorado.

          Why would Dems then try and controvert the will of the voters by pushing civil unions through immediately after voters thoroughly rejected the idea on multiple fronts?

          If Dems had gone that route, the same Republicans with their faux outrage over Democrats not being proactive enough on this issue for the last four years, would have been screaming bloody murder at Democrats for pushing through our evil liberal agenda.

          Unlike Republicans, Democrats didn’t try to circumvent the voters wishes as the Republican leadership did yesterday.

          If our deeply concerned brethren in the Republican Party are so disturbed at Democrats supposed “lack” of proactive approach to civil unions, where were the Republicans for the last four years?

          Oh, that’s right. They were busy voting down rights for gays every chance they had.

          To my Republican friends that support civil unions and gay marriage, every single time you defend your Republican leadership or vote for them, you are defending homophobia. Sorry, but you are.

          You’re part of the problem, not the solution. You keep voting in the same fuckers that keep denying rights to others. And that makes you just as guilty as they are.  

          1. The absolute GALL of the GOP to say “it’s all the Dems’ fault” when THEY cynically and bluntly used the rules to block and kill legislation they didn’t want passed, because they no longer had the votes to shoot it down.

            Remember when the GOP mantra was “up or down vote!”? Sure, so long as it’s for something they want passed. Just when I think they couldn’t sink any lower, they surprise me all over again.

            The tide has turned, and that’s apparent in how the GOP (as opposed to right wing pundits, special interest groups, and specific bigots among the ranks of elected Republican office holders) discusses the issue now. Where are the claims that they’re “protecting marriage”? Where are the arguments that same sex unions are immoral? That was their standard script just two years ago. Specific commenters here might ignore the polls, but it’s clear that GOP strategists are paying very close attention to them.

            1. But believe me, they are still flying around in emails between opponents of gay rights.  In the last few days, I’ve sifted through all kinds of crap in my email, ranging from “the gays put on their pride parades that are just porn right in front of our children” to “have you ever noticed that in gay relationships there’s always a man and a woman… that proves that even they know God wants them to find partners of the opposite sex” and all kinds of disgusting noise.

              And don’t forget the “finding Jesus is a better answer” line on the Senate floor for 3rd reading.

              1. I know that the bigots, most of whom vote GOP and many of whom are registered Republicans, still use that language. But I find it very revealing that the party itself seems to have abandoned it in their communications and spin efforts. Too bad that they started this fight 10 years ago.

      3. And on behalf of Dems, I deeply apologize that we have to triage and sequence our efforts to enact civil rights laws over your party’s homophobic opposition. (“You should’ve moved faster,” says the guy slamming on the brakes…)

  5. Elbee how much and how fast public opinion on civil unions has changed and that he can rest assured McNulty is on the losing side of history on  this one as sure as George Wallis and friends were back in the day. Whether or not Dems have done the right thing up until now doesn’t change that. It is what it is now. More so tomorrow and the day after and every day from now on.

    Next, on a maybe not completely unrelated note, I hope many here will read this powerful piece on what should come as no surprise; a well documented instance of execution of an innocent man in Texas (shocking, I know, considering the rate at which Texas offs people and the rate at which people have been released from death row over recent years) including Justice Scalia’s views(also not exactly shockingly cold blooded where the tender personhood of corporations is not concerned) as expressed in conjunction with a highly relevant Supreme Court decision. I have to consolidate to keep my number of comments within reason:

    From Yes, America, We Have Executed an Innocent Man by Andrew Cohen in The Atlantic

    Kansas v. Marsh was decided on June 26, 2006. The very next day, on June 27, 2006, two decorated Chicago Tribune reporters, Steve Mills and Maurice Possley, published the last of a three-part, groundbreaking series about the legal and factual problems with the DeLuna case. The headline that day was: “The Secret That Wasn’t”

    Read the whole chilling story here:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/nat…

    Nothing is more important than preventing the election of a Republican who will be able to secure the Supremes for decades to come. Nothing effects our lives and rights more than the huge societal issues that are decided in the Supreme Court which kind of brings us back to full rights for gay Americans in every state, coming sooner rather than later as long as we don’t cede that court.  There’s also the possible revisiting of Citizens United and corporate personhood by a court with one or two more Obama appointees versus Romney appointees. Either way, the earth is going to move November 2012.

        1. I have skipped entire two day periods to make up for overages.  Just counted and it’s been 41 days, including this one, since my April 5 two a day vow.  This makes 71 comments during that time.  Comfortably under a two a day average so I can splurge once in a while.  I can always take a week off to make up for my pre-April 5th blabbing by dong some more skipping but, gee thanks for your concern 🙂

          Tell you what.  Just to prove I can still control myself, over and out until Thursday.

  6. one I know has some views on 2nd amendment issues, riddle me this ellbee….

    If these NRA-inspired laws are so great for allowing you to defend yourself against threats, why did George Zimmerman get to use the “Stand Your Ground” law to avoid being arrested for weeks, but this abused women gets to go to jail for 20 years for doing the same thing?


    Domestic Abuse Victim Convicted For Defending Herself: The Hypocrisy Of The ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law

    If ever the Stand Your Ground law in Florida had a chance of being applied fairly, that has gone out the window in the case of Marissa Alexander, a 31-year-old mother of three who has been sentenced to 20 years for firing a warning shot at her abusive husband.

    In the aftermath of the long-delayed arrest of Trayvon Martin’s killer, it is incomprehensible that Alexander, who neither killed nor injured anyone, has been convicted of aggravated assault with a firearm and sentenced to 20 years in prison.

    Her husband, Rico Gray, a man with a documented history of abuse including an assault on her while she was pregnant, threatened to kill her nine days after the birth of their daughter. This time, Marissa wasn’t going to put up with another beating. When threatened, she fired a warning shot into the ceiling to let Gray know that the abuse was over and he’d better think twice before coming after her again.

    He then ran into the street and claimed that she had threatened to kill him and his boys. On his word alone, she was arrested.

    State Attorney Angela Corey, the same prosecutor who is prosecuting the Trayvon Martin case, offered a three-year sentence plea bargain but Alexander refused on the grounds that she had done nothing wrong. Alexander tried to invoke Florida’s Stand Your Ground law but the judge refused.

    Even though Gray recanted and even though Alexander’s 11-year-old daughter took the stand and made a plea on her mother’s behalf, the judge said that he had no choice but to sentence Alexander for at least 20 years.

    http://www.addictinginfo.org/2…

    Where’s the NRA on this case? This sounds like the PERFECT ‘Make My Day’ story for their self-published Gundamentalist rag, and yet they’re jerking their constituents off trying to raise money for that creep Zimmerman instead of this woman.

    Where’s the outrage?

    1. This kind of crap makes a mockery of our judicial system. Isn’t the root word in judicial, “justice”?

      There is no justice in this story.

  7. Custom-Made, Data-Driven Butt Plug for Each GOP Presidential Candidate

    Grand Ole Party is a data visualization of voter approval rates, amongst registered republicans, for each of the GOP candidates. It’s also a set of butt plugs.

    To make them, Matthew Epler culled data from Gallup’s website and used it to create line graphs that represent the fluctuating vote-approval rating of each GOP candidate. Longer plug = longer campaign. Next, the line graphs were imported into a 3D program that turns them into renderings of solid shapes, then a prototype of each one was 3D printed. From the prototypes, molds were made and filled with black silicone: and voila!

    For $350, you can own the full set of GOP butt plugs. A single unit costs $65 ($45 for Perry or Bachmann, as their campaigns-and thus plugs-were shorter than the rest).

    How “fitting”…

  8. Spencer Swalm. First he votes against civil unions, calling the pro-civil unions citizens in the gallery a “screaming mob.”

    And now he’s posting an article saying that Republicans needn’t bother trying to improve their standing with Hispanic citizens: an article taken straight from a white supremacist website (as detailed in another Colorado Pols thread).

    I feel somewhat motivated to elect a Democrat in my swing district (it almost went for the Democrat in 2008).

      1. Wow, I wasn’t expecting that.  I thought we’d have to rely on the ACLU to protect us from the tyranny of the ignorant.

        Now, I can’t wait to ask Hickenlooper the next time I see him why he thought this had to be saved for the special session.  

        1. and how they would have voted,he might still be able to get someone to make a motion to reconsider and try it again with a full Senate.  I think it has to be filed by someone who voted on the prevailing side, however.  I don’t know who that is with a tie vote.

  10. Denver’s major daily paper scored an interview with Rep Coram’s gay son, who hasn’t spoken with his father since Monday.

    Dee Coram is a brave man to speak out against his own father’s placement of partisanship over what Coram knew was right.  

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

30 readers online now

Newsletter

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