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%
May 23, 2012 03:40 PM UTC
88 Comments
Synopsis here – a couple of really good songs, a number of ok songs, (and some that we’re horrible – but that makes it EuroVision).
State Representative Barbara Marumoto (R, Kahala-Kaimuki) has announced that she will be retiring. She has served in the Hawaii House since 1978 and was a superb rep. She co-sponsored the Civil Unions bill and she was co-sponsor of Women’s Choice measures.
It will be lonely for my mom without her.
Drunk driving – a thing of the past. Accidents due to driving while very tired – no more. It’ll take another 5 – 10 years but it’s happening.
California Senate votes to allow self-driving cars
Sure you can have Jr VP Biden go out and claim Romneys private business experience is not a key componant for taking the Presidency, but once this is accepted it begs the thought of what successes have we seen with the previous community organizer/state senator?
Obama has ruined any hope of future community organizers ever ascending to the Presidency
so I’d like to point a couple of things in the Arkansas election: It’s an open primary and only 12% of the registered voters turned out.
It’s also worth pointing out that while two Congressional Districts had Dem primaries, compared to just one GOP, the vast majority of the legislature primaries were GOP. Something like ten to one.
On a different note, what do your last two comments have to do with your block quote?
…from the shrill cadre over here.
You are actually exactly whom I was hoping would respond to this.
Was what this person did right or wrong? Why?
It coarsens the debate and could spur one on-the-edge lunatic to violence.
Fantastic point, Raymond. Well said.
I can guess that you think this invalidates all calls for civility, but I’d like to see you explain how. (For example, how does this measure up against the time Barbara Bush called Geraldine Ferraro a
bitch“rhymes with witch.”You don’t get to put any words in my mouth, and I will tell you what I think, but I asked you first.
Actually, I wasn’t referring to you so much as being a member of the “shrill cadre” here on Pols, but I’d like your opinion nevertheless.
I was making a guess at where you stand. Also, I’m trying to avoid any “gotchas.”
Alright. First, union chairs are not politicians, at least not in the sense that elected officials are. Further, they’re not public figures in the sense that pundits and radio hosts are. They are people of influence, like the CEOs of corporations, but they’re generally not people whose speech has the same weight in the public as those we elect and those we watch or listen to. So, whatever they do does not have the same effect if it were done by a politician or pundit.
Second, putting someone’s face on a piГ±ata isn’t nice. It’s not something I’ve ever liked, regardless of the target or the context.
Third, this kind of thing is very commonplace and has been around as long as politics has been. That, by itself, doesn’t make it alright.
However, that leads to my fourth, which is, What harm does it do? Does it contribute to a culture of violence? I don’t think so – again, this sort of thing has been going on for a long time. Bashing a piГ±ata with someone’s face on it hasn’t led to someone bashing the real person’s face (not that I’ve ever heard, anyway). Does it send a bad message? I don’t think so – unions probably didn’t like the person to begin with, and it probably didn’t make anyone either change what or how they felt about this person. (I can’t even tell who it’s supposed to be.) Is it disrespectful? Yes. So are “Obummer” stickers.
If you were to ask me to rate the noxiousness of this action on a scale of 1-10, this gets a 2 or 3, (For comparison, Rush’s days-long bashing of Sandra Fluke gets a 9, and only falls short of 10 because he didn’t call for an active campaign of harassment. Barbara Bush’s unwarranted insult is a 7, and all the barely-disguised calls to arms from various conservative corners – the ones preceding the attempt on Rep. Gifford’s life – combined to about 8.)
So there you are.
It’s not good- I’ve seen much worse.
I want to to clear something up for me –
You’re not implying that Jared Loughner was spurred on to commit his crime by anything emanating from “conservative corners”, are you?
It was a year ago, and I still stand by it:
http://www.coloradopols.com/di…
And Barron (who’s been run off the site like most of the other conservatives) called it correctly. It’s a shameful, false correlation.
Please do yourself a favor, read the case files, and then make a decision based on facts as to whether or not this monster had anything other than a horrible mental illness and a personal, apolitical grudge against Congresswoman Giffords.
I know you’d really like there to be a connection, but there just isn’t. And as Barron said, it’s shameful to invent one, IMO.
It’s sad to say, but I do believe someone would have eventually shot someone or bombed someplace eventually, if it weren’t for the Giffords shooting. I remember what G. Gordon Liddy and the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre were saying in the time leading up to the Oklahoma City bombing. But Loughner? He’s a true “lone nuts,” someone as rare as Bigfoot.
The talk leading up to the Giffords shooting was just as bad, and came from the same place – a right wing reaction to being out of power. Beating on a piГ±ata doesn’t even compare.
Was the lady beating on the piГ±ata insane, and non-political in her actions or rhetoric?
You promised you would give us your opinion, so I’m going to ask that you do it now before continuing further down this line.
I think it’s incredibly awesome.
It demonstrates the true nature of labor unions, the hypocrisy of the shrieking that goes on here about some Republican or Tea Party actions, and at the same time, the inability of people to just flat-out condemn this for what it is – disgusting, inappropriate. Or “nauseating” as my favorite new Dem likes to say.
A triple play, so to speak.
We’ve been good enough to say why we hold the opinions we do. We’ve explained why this, in our opinions, fails to do what you say it does here. (Keep in mind that when you say things all inclusively, they’re going to be taken that way.)
Please explain why you think that’s what this is.
Can you be more specific?
“It demonstrates the true nature of labor unions”
How? We know you have a hatred of unions bordering on the irrational, so it’s very tempting to dismiss this out of hand. But I’d rather read your explanation of what the “true nature of unions is, and how this exemplifies it.
“the hypocrisy of the shrieking that goes on here about some Republican or Tea Party actions”
If this qualitatively doesn’t measure up, I don’t see the hypocrisy, personally, but then again it seems you mean certain individuals whom you’re choosing not to call out by name.
“and at the same time, the inability of people to just flat-out condemn this for what it is – disgusting, inappropriate.”
I agree it’s inappropriate. But I don’t think it rises to the level of disgust for the reasons I listed above. (If Obama were doing this, it would jump to 8 on my scale. Who does this matters as much if not more as what’s being done.)
In this case, yet another union member has decided that there is no civility, as long as they win, even if a win for them creates a bad situation for everyone.
Here’s a great one…
http://news.google.com/newspap…
Here’s another link. This one shows that all that bullying and hatred might just be for nothing…
http://www.wisconsinreporter.c…
On hypocrisy, you’ve demonstrated it very clearly today. You refuse to acknowledge that Giffords’ shooter had no demonstrable political motivations, yet you invent them, because it supposedly justifies your outrage at the Tea Party.
BTW, how’s that peaceful “Occupy” thing working for you guys these days?
Once you use the word “but” after saying the piГ±ata thing is inappropriate, you’ve invalidated your own criticism.
Either it’s inappropriate, or it’s not.
If you can square that with this:
…then I’ll acknowledge it. As I see it, my statement stands in complete contradiction to what you said, because it says that Loughner wasn’t prompted by political motivations.
One chance, ellbee. That’s all I’m giving you.
I don’t play ultimatum games. Besides, you’re not being very clear.
While you acknowledge Loughner acted independently of political influence, you say that “something” certainly would have happened because of it, save the Giffords shooting.
That’s pure speculation on your part, and not to your surprise, I find it completely flawed. It’s a scare tactic – a red herring. The Tea Party was not violent, certainly not statistically when you look at the number of gatherings vs. the number of incidents or arrests.
I’ll ask you something else from your column, and you can have as many chances as you’d like – because I’m a lover:
How do you square not condemning the piГ±ata thing with this, from your referenced diary:
Either I “refused to acknowledge hat Giffords’ shooter had no demonstrable political motivations” or I did not.
This time, we do have something simple.
Which did I do?
You did make the correct point.
But you didn’t stop, and said that “something” was bound to happen because of the heated rhetoric of the Tea Party. Which is bullshit. Nothing was bound to happen, and the Giffords shooting was exactly as you said, before you elaborated – ‘rare as Bigfoot’. End of story.
I never said “bound.” I said I feared something would happen. A bit less definite.
It’s my opinion, ellbee, and it was rooted in very recent history. Whatever you can say about McVeigh and Nichols, you can’t say that they were mentally ill, nor can you say that they weren’t affected by the rhetoric of their time. And I believe that the “second amendment solutions” rhetoric matched the “jack booted thug” rhetoric. And let’s not forget the conspicuous display of arms you saw at many tea party gatherings.
If you honestly believe that’s hypocrisy, then I just have to count that as one more piece of evidence that you’re unable or unwilling to remove the political filter from your view of things yourself.
I will be stepping aside at this point. I’m going to need time to muster up the forgiving feelings I need if I’m to engage with you here again.
For having a different opinion? I don’t understand that. I actually thought this was a great, respectful exchange. Something I haven’t seen on Pols for a long time.
I’m not personally attacking you. I’d hope, knowing me, that you’d know better than that. I’m sorry if I’ve hurt your feelings. It was unintentional.
For being willfully ignorant, willfully misunderstanding. That trait, frankly, is worse than lying, because it also betrays badgering. It’s not your different opinion, it’s your refusal (not inability) to acknowledge (not agree with) Ari’s. You are attacking, which in this medium is perfectly acceptable, but to this extent is tiresome.
(Not speaking for Ari.)
you are just looking for political fodder. You are so transparent, you are a joke.
Maybe the lady is just pissed off about your war on womens’ rights and is letting off a little steam. Does it surprise you when us namby-pamby liberals are ready to kick conservative asses?
I know a lot of progressives and moderates who are prepared and ready to give as good as they get from you fucking bullies.
Get used to it.
At least you responded.
Do you think this woman was out of line at all with the face on the piГ±ata thing? Does that send a bad message? Does it incite violence against women or anyone else?
Please, give me an honest reply.
Ellbee,
I see what you have done, but you will not get an honest answer.
You’ve found an example of a woman Labor leader acting like an ass. Yes, I agree. Definitely stupid, ugly behavior, OK?
The nice thing about the internet is that you can find at least an example or two or three of any type of person of any affiliation being an ass. Does this negate the reality of the very real conservative war on women, featuring very real legislation, being waged in an obviously well planned, coordinated effort in Republican majority legislatures all over the country and in the US House? We’ll see what outrages voters more in November, won’t we? You can search for this kind of thing all you want but, if this is the best you can do, so what?
Oh and as for that one outlier poll showing a majority of women for Romney? I wouldn’t get too excited about it if I were you.
I appreciate your ability to be honest.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…
from which a judgement should come. They of course, need to be politically correct. When I see one of your herd try to muzzle Mt. Rushbo, I will reconsider whether political correctness is appropriate going forward.
There is no equivalency between the left and right when it comes to downright meanness and violent tendencies. No comparison whatsoever. So when I see one of you whining about mistreatment by a progressive, it is no more than a laughing matter.
I’m still referring to ellbee, not Canines.
I called what rush said about Fluke inappropriate. I’
ll have to look back.
You’re right – the left is much less civil and more outrageous than the right. See: Palin.
I have no interest in playing your stupid little semantical games.
You are insincere. I have no respect for your phony indignation.
You see, you’ve made my point. You are struggling to call this action inappropriate, and you’ll scream like a mashed cat at something a conservative might do that’s almost this idiotic.
Either it’s right, or it’s wrong. Right?
We can say both were wrong, but one was much MORE wrong than the other.
The Head of the AFL-CIO in SC is elected by like-minded members of her union brethren.
Rush is an entertainer, period.
And which is worse, slandering a private citizen or symbolically bashing a public one?
…they are both fairly harmless. Idiotic, and harmless.
My overarching point is that you all had twenty diaries about Fluke, and we have folks here now who are constitutionally incapable of saying this is also wrong.
A private citizen’s name and reputation raked over the coals for days on end for the “entertainment” of millions of radio listeners, for which said radio host expressed remorse only for the sponsorships lost, is “harmless” to you?
She’s an advocate of a cause, not some poor thing plucked out of thin air against her wishes.
She was testifying as to how unfair it is that she has to pay for any part of her own birth control at a private university whose principals are philosophically opposed to paying for it.
But the attacks on her were vulgar, idiotic, and harmless.
Sandra Fluke did not testify about “how unfair it is that she has to pay for any part of her own birth control.” Here’s a transcript of her testimony; read it for yourself and see what she (would have) said (if any women had been allowed to testify at that hearing). http://www.buzzfeed.com/boxoff…
Let’s reiterate, though, Rush’s characterization of her was crude, and over the line.
This testimony was about Georgetown being forced to pay for her birth control. She thinks (as does the ACA and the admin.) that there should be no cost whatsoever for birth control, even at a private, religious-based university as part of their health coverage for students and employees.
I respectfully disagree with the government asserting that it has the right to force Georgetown to pay for this coverage.
We’re going to disagree on it, and again, I respectfully do so. But I’m not “lying” about anything.
and that’s where I lose all respect for your supposed role as the “reasonable” conservative of the site.
Fluke spoke about her classmates being denied contraceptive medications when prescribed for medical, non-contraceptive purposes. From her testimony, I have no idea if she even uses these drugs and/or devices.
So you are lying (or buying some recycled VRWC talking point you didn’t bother to fact check.) I’d hope for better from you, but you constantly disappoint.
But I’m still working on my understanding of why one minor union official doing a dumb and tasteless but ultimately harmless thing demonstrates the true nature of labor unions.
I guess that proof is in the same textbook that shows why Mitt Romney’s cruel high school bullying demonstrates the true nature of venture capitalism.
And, to be honest, I ain’t figured that one out either.
Unless it’s the fact that capitalists and union leaders are people too and people sometimes do dumb things.
Naw, it couldn’t be that.
I am not struggling to call this action anything…
This is your issue. You are not sincerely trying to start a conversation…a negotiation. You started this to make a point. You want us to admit that lefties are as nasty as righties. Yeah…OK…we’re getting that way…and we are only going to continue to become even more unwilling to listen to your BS. Your hypocritical baiting on this site is a perfect example of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy that defines your politics.
Your posts are insulting. I have no more to say to you on the subject.
Stay sweet.
This got posted about 15 hours ago. I’m sure there’s going to be some Repub-manufactured indignation, like The Rightwing blogosphere already posting this as “Violent Union thugs…”
And the Right will go with the “elevating the trivial as policy” thing until they move on to the next thing – probably about the same time that they dig up something Haley (or any other elected Repub from SC) did that looks and sounds about the same.
The worst thing? If this was Paul Rand, Ryan Pau or any of the popular Teapublicans, you’d probably defend it. You were OK with Al Simpson trying to punch someone pulling an O’Keefe…
Isn’t that your defense of Republicans behaving poorly?
Every time somebody posts a pic of some racist holding a sign at a Republican rally, you respond with pics of some idiot holding a sign at an anti-war rally in San Francisco.
After all the times you’ve pulled out that defense, you post this? Seriously?
I’d go find a story of a CEO behaving poorly, like maybe some asshole attacking a gay student and cutting off their hair, but it would be too much like wrestling with a pig.
Shame on her for that poor choice and forgetting that if you’re in any way a political target, someone will always be recording and someone else will always be waiting in the wings to publish the video with some choice commentary.
However, she is not a candidate for public office or an office-holder, and this does not appear to me to represent a pattern of violent rhetoric and incitement to violence within an organization or movement. Therefore, I find her behavior distasteful and condemn her personally, but I feel that the AFL-CIO should handle it as a private disciplinary matter within their organization. She behaved badly while acting as a representative of her employer; when this occurs, the employer should generally discipline the employee according to policy.
I would feel more stern about it if I learned that she intended for this video to be used in any kind of official or “official-but-shh-don’t-tell” messaging. (I had to watch with sound off, sorry if I missed something.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl…
That’s disgusting. Abhorrent.
See? That was pretty easy.
A carnival owner put up a picture of the President as a target.
then why did his belt buckle say “The Prez?”
That’s why it’s disgusting.
Too many violent fucking lunatics in this country.
You’re one of the handful of folks here that consistently calls right and wrong on a non-partisan basis. But, in truth, I sure am enjoying the inability of some others to do it.
You don’t “call right and wrong on a regular basis” by any stretch.
Far from it.
Another red herring story from a professional victim, set up to snivel about the scorn justifiably heaped on you.
For years, even back to the laughing boy days, you’ve been the “agent provocateur”, never intending to add substance, always snarkily peeing in the pool, like an ornery little kid trying to ruin the party he’s not old enough to be at.
Then tell me if it was wrong of this lady to post a video of a piГ±ata with Nikki Haley’s face on it, being hit?
I could care less what you think of me, to be honest. I usually stop reading anyone’s posts when they start just being insulting, rather than interesting, but I would like to know how you view this.
While the lady was obviously wrong, her actions too republican like for me, it’s rare.
But you, with no other agenda other than to be a turd in the punch bowl, show the same contrarian quirks as liberbot, and the same penchant to one up rather than contribute.
..you posted this video of a small gathering of a select set of people from a particular special interest group you loathe, claiming that the “violent behavior by vicious union thugs” represents the flaws of every single member of that group.
You then claim that when a select set of people (Tea Party Members) are responsible for displaying far more violent behavior by a much larger set of individuals AND on many many more occasions, that’s not anything representative of the larger group, but actually a POSITIVE Ethical value.
Did I miss anything?
You nailed it, and him.
..now it’s time for those facty-thingies again.
The latest Repub myth busted – the Obama Federal Spending Spree:
Breakin’ it down:
In the 2009 fiscal year – the last of George W. Bush’s presidency – federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/…
In fiscal 2010 – the first budget under Obama – spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
Finally in fiscal 2013 – the final budget of Obama’s term – spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook here: http://www.cbo.gov/publication…
Summary:
But yeah…I’m sure ‘tad will tell us it’s all about the $5 gallon of milk he bought last night while pumping up his Mom’s car with $5 a gallon gas.
They are held to a stricter standard.
after a Republican spending spree, and it’s hard to keep up with one of those.
…and vote for peace candidate Richard Murphy for Congress in the closed June Republican primary.
You can change parties online at GoVoteColorado.com
Watch Richard Murphy’s Two-Minute Antiwar Address to HD-2 Republicans.
…that tax cuts have a cost.
You can view it that way only if you assume that the money already belongs to the government before the people earn it.
You can’t cut taxes and reduce the deficit.
Stop wasting money.
downsize the military. stop the war.
….”that deficits don’t matter when it comes to tax cuts.”
There’s a pretty big fucking hole in the deficit caused by the Bush Millionaire Tax cut, enacted exactly when we started two wars.
By the way, Dubya promised that tax cut would pay for itself in ten years. Care to pull some Enron math out of your ass to explain what happened?
Ken Bennett, Arizona Secretary Of State, Backs Away From Birther Request
Can Arizona be embarrassed any more than they have already? I’m not sure that’s possible.
Oh, just you wait and see. If they were a TV show they would have just been guaranteed two more seasons. Just look how long Texas has run.
Ken Bennett, Arizona Secretary Of State, Backs Away From Birther Request
Can Arizona be embarrassed any more than they have already? I’m not sure that’s possible.
http://jimromenesko.com/2012/0…
It is, after all, on private property. At least the gubmint ain’t involved.
🙂