Monday Open Thread

“Ethics and equity and the principles of justice do not change with the calendar.”

–D. H. Lawrence

73 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. ParkHill says:

    WOTD: "What does that even mean?"

    Jim Acosta: "How does the "Forward Party" feel about Roe v. Wade?"

    Andrew Yang: "The Forward Party has a – not left or right – but a "forward" stance on even the most divisive & contentious issues."

    Jim Acosta: "What does that even mean?"

    • Lauren Boebert is a Worthless POS says:

      It means absolutely nothing.

      I always suspected that Andrew Yang, like Marianne Williamson, was not to be taken seriously. (Maybe it was his silly "Math" button.) This reinforces my suspicion.

      There are many ways a politician can finesse the issue of abortion. Fo example, by saying that they, like most voters, believe that abortion should be available and legal albeit subject to some restrictions, etc.

      Simply saying, "No divisive issues" makes him sound as vacuous as Hiedi Heidi Ganahl who pretty much said the same thing when she announced her candidacy.

      • ParkHill says:

        Right. There is one particularly divisive issue I am completely in favor of:

        The Bannon/Trumpist/Fascist wing of the Republican Party must be split off, destroyed, burned and buried. 

        Yes, I'm very divisive on that point!

    • Denver Yankee says:

      Doublespeak is alive and well.

    • JohnInDenver says:

      The "not right, not left, but Forward" is the default, a rhetorical child of "Make America Think Harder." I hear it as the equivalent of "I dunno." 

      Yang, Jolly, and Todd Whitman are trying to take individual unsuccessful efforts to influence existing parties and mix them to create a new party and influence the future of the country.  I'll probably pay more attention to them if they are able to elect a state governor, US Rep, or US Senator.  So far, I've not heard they have been able to find ANY candidate for any office running in 2022 willing to sign on to be a "Forward" candidate.

  2. coloradosane says:

    Andrew Yang is the poster child for the participation trophy generation conflict avoidance adherent clan.   Will bleed the anti authoritarian coalition of Dem voting non Dems like me.  Until we are out of " US Civil War II, Bannonesque  overthrow to rebuild better " by the GOP trumpian freaks a third party would only make sense by Liz Cheney running in some form of new party bleeding off real conservatives from current GOP.  

  3. Dano says:

    The Forward Party has made clear from the get go that they will tackle the divisive issues, but it will be as a party choosing collectively how to proceed, rather than as a few founders dictating what the party's view on every topic will be.

    From their website, I get the sense they are allowing room for differing opinions of some of these things, and let the voters decide on the individual candidate's position rather than a party position. Wow, what a novel concept electing people because of their views and not because of their party!

    • kwtree says:

      That’s all hunky dory, but women have a right to know where candidates stand on abortion. Other groups on other issues, as well. Perhaps the Forwarders will feature individual candidate issue profiles on their site.

      The Forward Party seems to be embracing a libertarian capitalism. ( and “naturalistic capitalism” – Bowman, take note!) I like that they’re willing to debate openly with far right csndidates- I think that’s healthy.

      I like what I see of their electoral platform-  ranked choice voting, nonpartisan primaries, independent redistricting commissions. 

       

      • Voyageur says:

        Men, who are actually more pro-choice than women, also have a right to know where candidates stand on this issue, kwtree.

      • MichaelBowman says:

        I’ll check out their views on natural capitalism.  I’m a fan of Hunter but have no idea whether she’s advising the campaign or not. I’m generally comfortable where I’m at party-wise. 
         

        Andrew and I were two of the twelve “Champions of Change” that met with Obama on the one-year anniversary of the White House program. I later ran into him backstage at a Bill Maher taping (he was a guest that night; it was just a coincidence. I was there as a guest of Joe Walsh – a much longer story!). Andrew is a nice guy but I didn’t get the whole “Yang Gang” energy at the time – probably too long in the tooth these days for sound bites to resonate.
         

        After 30 years of  being a Republican I’d be more likely to commit to rebuilding the steaming pile of shit that’s the GOP today than to be coaxed into Forward –  but neither one of those scenarios are going to happen. The Dems – for all of their warts – are my team. 

         

        • kwtree says:

          The Dems – for all of their warts – are my team

          I agree- at least, that’s where my vote,volunteer hours and scant dollars are going.

          If the Forwarders can push their electoral reform agenda in some swing states, though, it would be a positive thing.

          • MichaelBowman says:

            I am solidly in the pro-ranked choice voting environment.  I’m anxious to watch it play out in Alaska this month 

            From a policy-advocacy perspective I’m more agnostic on party. The near twenty years of hemp work revealed good friends/people on both sides of the aisle. It took a village that I appreciate. Just try to follow Willie’s three golden rules: 1) Don’t be an asshole, 2) don’t be an asshole, 3) don’t be a *ucking asshole.

      • Dano says:

        Individual candidate profiles is probably the best path. Keep in mind, the Forward Party is just now forming, I doubt there will be any candidates flying the Forward banner until 2024.

        The electoral reform is the issue that appealed to me most.

  4. westslope says:

    WTF does that mean, Dano? It will be as a party choosing collectively how to proceed?’’

    Sounds like those who join and who have the time and money to get to a convention argue about a platform.

    Letting voters decide on candidates? Wow. I’m stunned at the concept.

     

    • Dano says:

      Individualism is how I have interpreted their message so far. A platform, to really represent a party, must be decided by the members of that party. In my days with the Dems I was always amazed at the passion and zeal with which some people in the party fought over each word of individual planks of the STATE party platform, especially when it came to INTERNATIONAL affairs. And the reality is, federal candidates would go their own way on those issues anyway.

      A platform should be a list of basics principles. And details of how to implement those principles can vary by candidate. Where we sit now is we expect all Dem candidates to be ultra-liberal and vote a certain way on of all kinds of issues. As people like Manchin and Sinema, show they don't. Ditto with the GOP and conservative issues, but they are currently even more divided. This is leading both parties to have litmus tests over who is "pure" enough to run as a one their candidates. It also affects the passage or failure for legislation. No one votes on how good or bad it is anymore, only which party is sponsoring it.

      I am far more interested in candidates who think for themselves and evaluate each piece of legislation on its merits, not which party sponsors it. It may come to surprise you that Republicans do sometimes have good ideas, though lately that too has been largely lost in the wave of trumpism.

      So how I am envisioning the Forward Party's path is to get thru the setting up phase (going on now), establish some fairly broad guidelines of what the party stands for. (these are already of the party's website) and then have candidates who stand on their own personal beliefs, within those broad guidelines, and let the individual show through rather than have them painted by one party paintbrush.

  5. Dano says:

    Keep in mind The Forward party is not "The Party of Yang". He is just one of our co-chairs. The other being former Gov. Christine Whitman.

    Yes, I said our. I have signed on with the Forward Party because I like what I hear so far: a centrist party for those who feel the Dems  and GOP have gotten themselves into unsolvable gridlock. So far, the role I have offered myself for is to help with building the structure of the party on the state level, such as making sure all the i's are dotted and t's crossed with the Sec. of State's office and setting up things like central committees etc. Too early to tell how much I will be involved but it all just getting started.

    Someone mentioned Liz Cheney. I actually suggested that leadership reach out to her if she should lose her primary next week and see if she is interested in joining us. Having her on the 2024 ballot as an independent/Forward candidate might shake up Wyoming a bit. 

    • Duke Cox says:

      OK, folks. This sort of talk is fine in times of peace, but this nation is at war with a domestic enemy. It is incumbent upon us to remember the existential threat we face and not water-down our opposition to the Orange Pretender and his MAGA army.

      After the Republican party as we know it is exposed and broken up, there will be time to recreate our union. Now IS NOT…I repeat, IS NOT, the time to be distracted from the only path that will defeat the Orange Horde…

      Vote Blue…No Matter Who!

      • 2Jung2Die says:

        I'm with Duke here. This is no time to dick around. 77,744 voters combined between Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania in 2016 gave us 6 years of hell, between the TFG presidency and the bloody aftermath. One Senate seat flips by the narrowest of margins, and we risk having Mitch back in the Senate Majority Leader's office. That means we're back to blocking SCOTUS nominations, and good bills get delayed or killed. The US House is also too close to dick around with, and if the GOP takes it back, there goes all hope of progressive legislation for at least two long years.

        I'd feel better if I knew Yang would pull more GOP members into his ranks than liberals or progressives. I don't buy it, because the GOP understands what it takes to seize and consolidate power.

      • coloradosane says:

        enlightenedyes  that up there. 

    • Voyageur says:

      I have a lot of respect for you, Dano, and am truly sorry to see you join the Ego Party.  They can only help the Fascists by dividing the anti-fascist vote.

       

      • Dano says:

        At least at the state level we have discussed this (we do monthly Zoom meetings). We are in agreement that trumpism is a threat to the country and the general consensus has been so far to not run in races where we are likely to aid them.

        I suspect the first places you will see Forward Party candidates will be places that are very red and the Dems have no real chance of winning, but where the voters should have another option. I see CDs 4 and 5 being likely, as well as some legislative seats in the crimson counties.

        The other side of that coin can be districts where the Dem is going to get 60%+ no matter who is on the ballot. CD 1 falls into this category as well several deep blue legislative districts (basically Denver and Boulder).

      • ParkHill says:

        Yes, despite Dano's generally sharp political eyes, Voyager has it exactly right:

        The Forward Party will absolutely and specifically help the Republican Party because they will draw more votes from Democrats. Watch how much funding they will get from Republicans sowing disorder against the Democrats.

        A Centrist Party would be fine, but not in a 51% electoral system, and not while the Republican Party is in the hands of the fascists. 

        The very same arguments applied to the Greens who draw away from the Democrats. Libertarian candidates draw mostly from the Republicans. 

        Liz Cheney could help us by starting a Conservative Party in Wyoming, pulling in a couple dozen voters from the right-wing foreign policy establishment.

        But, which fragments of the Republican Party would realistically be likely to split off? The four big R voting blocs are: Evangelicals, Authoritarians, Racists, plus the angry White anti-liberal culture warriors. Plutocrat Republicans simply don't have the electoral weight to make much difference. And, there really aren't that many moderate Republicans any more. 

        • Dano says:

          I have often suspected that a lot of Republicans, if allowed to be individuals rather than just one more vote in the GOP bloc, would turn out to be rather moderate.

           

           

          • Conserv. Head Banger says:

            Forward Party adherents need to heed the lessons from the 5th District Republican primaries here in Colorado.

            Not including Dave Williams in this number, reasonable Republicans always split the anti-Lamborn vote and he keeps getting back in.

        • The realist says:

          Exactly, ParkHill. Whether we like it or not, we have a two-party system. Negotiation among factions occurs within each party (if it occurs at all). A third party is only useful if it draws votes away exclusively from the party you oppose. 

        • MichaelBowman says:

          Speaking of the angry whites…

          It's a pet project of the wackadoodles to try and get moratoriums on wind farms in eastern Colorado. We had a group show up at the last Yuma County Commissioners meeting demanding such a moratorium.  The commissioners wisely rejected their demands and said they'd be open to specific ideas that were vetted publicly .  

          • Lauren Boebert is a Worthless POS says:

            "It's a pet project of the wackadoodles to try and get moratoriums on wind farms in eastern Colorado"

            Did they come in with "data" from the science editor of the National Enquirer showing the spike in diagnosed cancer cases?

          • Conserv. Head Banger says:

            What's their justification for a moratorium, Michael? Do they have a problem with capitalism that allows ranchers to put turbines on their private property to own the libs, oops, I mean provide power to the Front Range?

            • MichaelBowman says:

              They got infected from the wackadoodles in Washington County.  They've bought into Fat Donnie's rhetoric on cancer, have absolutely no idea what they're talking about re: capacity factors, think the big bad companies are going to just let them rot in 20 years and walk away.   The YuCo Commissioners rejected their thesis whole-cloth on the basis of property rights and that we already have a significant policy in place to deal with the developments. 

              The irony, and it's on this issue I agree with them, is that these multi-billion dollar developments suck a lot of money out of the project.  Well….children…we have an entire financial infrastructure at USDA-RUS that could have controlled the entirety of these build-outs on the plains and trapped all of those benefits for the REA consumers had they not had their heads so far up Tri-State's arse since 2004 (Amendment 37) and others like Sonnenberg and Brophy trying to kill every initiative since then.  They reap what they sow.  

            • MichaelBowman says:

              CHB – this is the brain trust we’re dealing with:

        • Lauren Boebert is a Worthless POS says:

          "A Centrist Party would be fine, but not in a 51% electoral system"

          Bingo! As long as we have the first-past-the-post electoral system, a political menage a trois will often result in unintended and unpleasant results. And that is a risk we run in just the Senate, Congressional, and state races.

          Once you factor in the machinations of the Electoral College, you have a recipe for disaster. Example, Ronald Reagan won all of Massachusetts' electoral votes in 1980. Does anyone really believe that most voters in the Bay State preferred the Gipper over the other two?

          Ditto, Bill Clinton winning all of Colorado's electoral votes in 1992 with the sweeping mandate of 40% of the statewide popular vote.

        • DavidThi808 says:

          I would add a party based on let's be reasonable and get along and we'll meet and decide what our platform is – that's not a political party. That's a Friday afternoon club.

          Political parties are created because the existing parties are not supporting or opposing an important fundamental philosophy. The party is created to represent voters who find that fundamental philosophy more important than anything else.

          So you can craft a party around abortion, gun legislation, religion, etc. But it needs to be strongly focused on that issue in a way the existing parties are not. For example, the Republican party was founded on opposition to the expansion of slavery (and viewed by the South as founded on ending slavery). 

          It was not founded on everyone is too upset at each other and so all of us agreeable people will get together and in the course of our kumbaya moment, we'll determine our policies.

          The forward party makes no sense and will not amount to anything.

    • Gilpin Guy says:

      This is a con.  The rosy, "We're different" storyline exists because they have no candidates.  Once human flesh informs the party, things change.  All candidates have warts.  All political parties have biases.  Feel free to join a new political party but if you think you are better than what's come before, you're smelling your own farts.

      • Dano says:

        Perhaps, Gilpin Guy. But if we can loosen the gridlock of the "us and them" mentality running Washington, than it will have been worth it to me.

        • westslope says:

          Sorry, Dano, but you won't. I agree with V (not unusual for me) and even PH, which is unusual. You sound old enough to have outgrown your youthful idealism.

          • Dano says:

            "You sound old enough to have outgrown your youthful idealism."

            I'm much closer to the end of my life than I am to the beginning. Maybe having already died on the gurney once is what has prompted my desire to see things get better rather continue down the drain they currently circle.

        • Gilpin Guy says:

          At some point you have to declare what you are for and the minute you do that you will alienate someone.  If you don’t take a stand on things like women’s rights and climate change, you are worthless trash that talks out of both sides of your mouth at the same time and accomplishes nothing.  Look at the gibberish out of the mouth of Yang on women’s right.  A  totally ridiculous comment that showed a commitment to nothing.

          The people who accomplish things usually are motivated by ideals, causes or goals.  What is the Forward into Mumbo Jumbo position on the science of climate change and how is that agenda any different from what got passed by Democrats and Biden Administration.  How fast do you reasonably expect to be in power to deploy these super better Forward into Mumbo Jumbo policies to save us from this existential threat.  If you don’t have any positions on the science of climate change or you are realistic enough to know that you can’t achieve enough power in time to enact good climate resiliency programs then get out of the way and let people who are committed to hardening infrastructure and building climate resiliency into our communities do the job.  Your feeble efforts are going to fail and cost the rest of us and all living things on the planet a livable future.  If you have better ideas then publish them and let’s have a discussion on whether they are revolutionary or not.  If it is between people who want to roll back carbon and climate standards and people who are willing to stand up for a cleaner planet or do nothings who just don’t want anybody to dislike them, I’m going with planetary defenders EVERY time.  Your 3rd party snobbery is meaningless to me and the problems I want solved like the ozone hole over Antarctica.  Oh wait, we did solve that environmental problem by altering human behavior.  We can do this with new solutions not bland political pansies.

          • Dano says:

            "At some point you have to declare what you are for and the minute you do that you will alienate someone."

            I agree 100%. But I just want candidates to be able to declare what they are for, rather than a party telling them what they are for.

            • Gilpin Guy says:

              What kind of Kool-Aid is Forward Frivolous serving to have you believe that Democratic candidates are just empty brains that have party orthodoxy poured into them?  In the real world, candidates align with the party that best represents their positions and brings those positions and understandings of things like our government and the environment to their constituents.  Then there are candidates like Sinema and Cheney who buck their party leadership for personal and professional reasons.  To say that candidates have to spew the party line to be a member of their party is naive beyond belief.  How are you going to handle primaries when two or more candidates with opposing views are running for a Fast Forward endorsement?  Who are your party members and how do you define what their concrete positions are regarding effective government and the economic and environmental realities of our time?  What balderdash to assume that Democratic candidates are timid people who just accept what they are told to believe.

              • Gilpin Guy says:

                Just an addendum that I never got a serious answer about where the Forward group stands on the science of climate change and what they propose to do to deal with the different scenarios that climate science is predicting.  Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

                This is really shaping up to be nothing more than an Andrew Yang vanity project to make him the king maker by deciding whether he will allow his supporters to otherwise vote for Democratic candidates.  If the Forward group really supports doing something about building climate resiliency into our core social and environmental infrastructure then they have to side with Democrats.  If they have been brainwashed into believing that Democrats are bad people too and are controlled by a shadowy cabal then it is Yang who will tell them to hold their noses and vote for their self-interest or under vote the race so that the Republicans win.  It's kind of like blackmail.  Do my bidding or I withhold the critical votes you need to win.  If the Forward group is against environmentally conscious actions then we are cultural enemies and not a single progressive person in our country should support such a churlish display of cynicism by Yang.  "Support me because I take no positions which makes me better then those people who compromise and create based on their beliefs." Not

          • Conserv. Head Banger says:

            "we did solve that environmental problem……"

            Also helping was President Reagan signing the Montreal Protocols in 1987, thus committing the US to the correct environmental path.

    • ParkHill says:

      B-B-But. The Democratic Party is already the moderate Party. Look at the policies that have extensive support with the Public:

      Abortion Rights
      Climate Change mitigation
      Health Care for All
      Secure and Enhance Social Security
      Lower Prices for drugs
      Environmental Regulation,
      LQBTQ Rights
      Racial Equity.
      etc, etc…

      Basically the entire social support system that allows Capitalism to flourish and avoid the feared revolution.

      These are all moderate, highly-popular issues. The Right-Wing, aka the Corporate Wing of the Democratic Party is the radical obstructionist wing of the Party. Even the "4X Squad" plus Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are right down the middle in terms of popular opinion on the policy front.

  6. JohnInDenver says:

    Yesterday, CPR put up a story

    Weekend GOP fundraisers show ongoing divide among El Paso County Republicans

    El Paso County Republicans held a fundraiser in the backyard of former senate candidate and former El Paso County GOP chair Eli Bremer’s home in Colorado Springs Saturday night….

    “There was a heavy appetite particularly by our elected officials and candidates to do an end of the summer party. They wanted to do something that actually supported our Republican candidates,” Bremer said.

    "The local GOP has not shown that they are going to show support to our candidates. And so this is a way that everybody can come together."

    Everybody coming together apparently did not include everybody: " Bremer's fundraiser was held on the same night as the county party's annual Lincoln Day dinner, their biggest fundraiser of the year. That fundraiser also took place in Colorado Springs and featured guest speaker Congresswoman Lauren Boebert."

    I looked and did not see any indication that Buck & Lamborn went to the Lincoln Day dinner, or that Boebert dropped by Eli Bremer's. Steve Monahan, Erik Adland, and Barb Kirkmeyer attended Bremer's event, but I can't see any mention at the Lincoln Day dinner. And I don't see mention of Qualteri or Dawson at all.

  7. MichaelBowman says:

    So facism = big dick energy these days? The week starts with a dagger in Fat Donnie’s back from his bff in Arizona (h/t Noel Casler)

    I wonder how Trump is reacting to Kari Lake endorsing DeSantis last night at a Nazi rally saying he had ‘BDE’ (big dick energy) Donnie is a man with a tiny mushroom phallus that a former paid sex-worker once described to me as ‘looking like a dog chewed-on it’ Ouch. .

  8. kwtree says:

    Who is Ted Budd? That’s what I wanted to know when I saw his ad for “true conservative leadership” floating at the top of this page.
    Next question: why is a North Carolina senate candidate spending money in the Denver ad market??? Answer: the Koch brothers gave him $250,000, and he has to spend it somewhere, that’s why.

    That NC Senate race is very much a swing race. Trump won North Carolina by less than 1% in 2020. That senate district went Republican by less than 4% over the last few elections.

    Budd is running against a Democratic state supreme court judge- Cheri Beasley. This is one race I think the greens, independents, forwarders, etc, should stay out of ( not that they’re listening to me) because it is so close.

    • Conserv. Head Banger says:

      I believe that Budd was endorsed by Trump. Yes, NC is close. It may be a state where abortion rights outduel inflation among the voters.

      • Lauren Boebert is a Worthless POS says:

        Trump did endorse Budd but his main primary opponent, Pat McCrory, had something of the perfect storm hit his candidacy.

        First, McCrory has a proven record as a statewide loser – three races for governor out of which he lost two. Then there was his fustercluck on North Carolina's notorious bathroom bill during his one term as governor. Combine that with his reputation as an establishment Republican – a Tarheel State version of Bob Beauprez or Bill Owens – and you begin to see what the problem was.

  9. DavidThi808 says:

    Illogical ranting on Fox News, etc. is not a bug, it's a feature.

    I read this somewhere yesterday (wish I saved the link). The advertisers on the right wing shows want the content to be illogical, stupid, etc. They want that. Because it means they can sell ridiculously useless things to that audience.

    The "news" shows are designed to provide a captive audience of idiots to their advertisers.

  10. Lauren Boebert is a Worthless POS says:

    Right about now, Miss Thing is probably crapping in her panties….

    Federal Judge Rejects Graham’s Motion To Quash Fulton County Subpoena (msn.com)

    Maybe she can join Rudy on the Midnight Train to Georgia.

  11. Lauren Boebert is a Worthless POS says:

    How will he ever be able to book that Aeroflot flight to Moscow ….

    Trump Says The FBI Took His Passports In Its Mar-A-Lago Search (msn.com)

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.