U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser (D) Joe Neguse (D) Michael Bennet
50% 50% 50%
Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Jena Griswold

(D) Brian Mason

60%↑

30%↑

20%↓

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%↑

30%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

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

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Manny Rutinel

(D) Yadira Caraveo

45%↓

40%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
October 24, 2022 11:11 PM UTC

Tuesday Open Thread

  • 53 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“Don’t do or say things you would not like to see on the front page of The Washington Post.”

–Donald Rumsfeld

Tweet
Share

Comments

53 thoughts on “Tuesday Open Thread”

      1. It's a freakin' BCT rotation to Europe that's been done since the dawn of time.  It just happens to be a couple hundred miles further east than before.

        But since everyone knows the 101st from Band of Brothers it takes on a mystic sense as the average American can't differentiate a BCT from a MEU.

          1. Voyageur,

            It's the military…. acronyms are the main weapon.  If a PowerPoint brief isn't 25% acronyms there's no way it will be understood by command staff and the mission will fail due to lack of understanding.

          1. Yep.  A deployment that started in June is certainly a reaction to the “dirty bomb” story that’s been circulating around the interwebs in the last week.  Because it’s so much more sinister than one BCT replacing another BCT on a training rotation. And it was the mighty 82nd that was replaced! Even more intrigue!

             

              1. Why not both?

                US to deploy 3,000 troops to Romania, Poland, Germany

                In February the U.S. announced this initial deployment which surged elements of a Stryker BCT based in Germany and a BCT from the 82nd.  In May the deployment of the 101st was announced as the replacement for the 82nd.  Another BCT from the 1st CAV was also announced to replace a BCT from the 3rd Armored that was in deployed to Europe earlier (just in case anyone thought that deployments had stopped after Afghanistan).  All of these elements have been dicking around Eastern Europe for most of 2022 to demonstrate NATO resolve without making the Russians more paranoid than they already are.

                If the US announces the deployment of few divisions and air wings… than you can get all conspiracy minded.

                1. I see. Thank you, you appear to be a wealth of knowledge. Can you suggest a reason that Russia would consider detonating a "dirty" bomb and escalate the current situation which would open the floodgates of NATO opposition rather than fight it out with Ukraine alone? How would doing so increase their chances of victory?

                  1. Same reason the US has considered launching a decapitating strike on the Kremlin with conventional weapons.  Because you think through all of your options.

                    Certain elements in Russia have probably weighed whether a limited nuclear strike on NATO would be feasible as well and whether or not it would elicit a proportionate or MAD response.  Would a dirty bomb detonation in Russian occupied Ukraine, or close enough to the area, give a justification for a proportional  response by Russia.  Which is probably 2 or 3 tactical nukes in Ukraine.

                    Putin has nothing to lose if he doesn't win something in Ukraine.  This war either ends with enough  of Ukraine in Russian hands for Putin to justify victory or it ends with him dead.  I'd rather see Putin dead and Trump talking shit about how weak he was while trying to determine which Russian strongman's flacid penis he needs to fellatio next.

                    1. Based on your assessment, which I respect and appreciate, how do you see this conflict panning out?

                       

                    2. “Because you think through all of your options”, proportionate or MAD, it is fraught with danger for civilization.

                  2. Russia is setting up the bizzaro story that UKRAINE is going to use a dirty bomb. 

                    If a dirty bomb blows up and international opinion can be shaped so the Ukrainians get the blame, then there is likely to be a loss of international support for Ukraine. 

                    For a different audience, Russians setting off a dirty bomb is a nuanced escalation, showing they are willing to do more and crowd the line of nuclear escalation, without actual use of a tactical weapon. 

                    I don't know that such a move would work with either popular opinion in the world or among the national security professionals — and I certainly don't know that a move like that will do anything to help them get to "victory."   So far, most moves they have made have been effectively countered or resulted in a defeat — a very, VERY few have remained ambiguous and don't seem to have moved them closer to any sort of advance toward anything understood as their aims at the start of the invasion.

                    1. The one scenario you left out is Ukraine detonating a dirty bomb and getting international opinion to believe Russia did it…That could reasonably bring international support to them and is really the most beneficial use of a dirty bomb in the current situation. 

    2. Here is a summary of the letter from HC-R (the 30 are basically sending a wish for a resolution to the conflict, but supporting Biden’s approach). Also see Josh Marshall at TPM for a critical account (basically that the letter is incoherent and written last July).

      Earlier that day, the defense ministers of each of those countries spoke to Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu “at his request.” They rejected Russia’s recent “transparently false allegations that Ukraine is preparing to use a dirty bomb on its own territory,” saying the world sees that assertion as a “pretext for escalation,” and they reject it as such. The countries continue to share a “determination to continue supporting Ukraine and the Ukrainian people with security, economic, and humanitarian assistance in the face of President Putin’s brutal war of aggression.”

      That statement was the backdrop for a letter from 30 of the progressive members of the Democratic Party to President Joe Biden today, apparently urging him to “pursue every diplomatic avenue” with Russia to find a solution to the war “that is acceptable to the people of Ukraine.” They wrote “as legislators responsible for the expenditure of tens of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars in military assistance in the conflict.” 

      Some observers have seen in this document pressure on Biden to change his approach to supporting Ukraine, but the letter reads as if it champions his approach. It cheers on Biden’s “commitment to Ukraine’s legitimate struggle against Russia’s war of aggression” and applauds his avoidance of direct military conflict with Russia, which would “lead to ‘World War III, something we must strive to prevent.’” It notes the difficulty of engaging with Russia “given its outrageous and illegal invasion of Ukraine and its decision to make additional illegal annexations of Ukrainian territory,” and agrees that it is not America’s place to make decisions about Ukraine without the leadership of the Ukrainians. 

      But it urged Biden—a man steeped in foreign affairs, who has made diplomacy central to his foreign policy—to “make vigorous diplomatic efforts” to find a “rapid end to the conflict.” In short, the letter seemed to be a way before the midterms to assure progressive voters on the one hand and conservative voters on the other, both concerned about the financial cost of supporting Ukraine, that Democrats are mindful of the costs of the Ukraine defense and are trying to find solutions. But the letter was widely interpreted as a call for concessions to Putin, and by this evening, some of the congress members who had signed it felt obliged to reaffirm their support for the administration’s Ukraine policy. 

      1. What tactical or strategic benefit would Russia get from detonating a "dirty" bomb in Ukraine? In contrast, how would Ukraine benefit from having one detonated on their soil? 

      2. So the main defense of TPM & you is that the letter was incoherent and therefore not a big deal? Look, I respect both you & Josh Marshall but in this case you are trying to excuse inexcusable behavior because you support the idiots who signed the letter.

        If something is wrong, it's wrong regardless of who says it.

        1. And… it's politically stupid to release this letter 3 weeks before election day. Are they trying to help Republicans take back Congress? This is the kind of crap the crazies on the Republican side pull on their party to harm the few remaining members trying to govern.

          1. I agree with you David. The letter was foolish, and inappropriate. However, it in fact supports Biden, and didn't actually say what the WaPo headline claimed. It was easily seized upon by anti-Biden voices, not to mention anti-progressive voices, especially on the middle.

              1. “We’re not going to have conversations with the Russian leadership without the Ukrainians being represented,” Biden spox John Kirby told reporters. “Mr. Zelensky gets to determine — because it’s his country — what success looks like and when to negotiate.”

                FYI that is the Biden admin response I cut and pasted from the Bulwark today. I think it is a good one with the right tone.

      3. Parkie, I think I liked the screwballs in the Progressive Caucus better when they were just screaming for free stuff for all instead of meddling in foreign affairs.

    3. David, I was thinking the same thing about appeasement in the 1930’s when I read about the infamous letter.

      These 30 are no better than Kevin McCarthy and the GOP Putin Caucus.

      1. What does the Congressional Progressive Caucus have in common with Tucker Carlson.

        Answer: they both give aid and comfort to Vladimir Putin.

        1. Move far enough to the right and far enough to the left and the sides meet up.

          Ruben Gallego, a member of the Progressive Caucus whom I respect, would not sign the letter. He said the way to end the fighting in Ukraine is to win the war quickly.

  6. BS#8. Corrupt DOJ harassing parents as domestic terrorist.

    Butt out David, this is for CHB. But if you want to take a shot at it and say why these are not bull shit, have a go. CHB made the challenge then folded like cheap lawn chair from Walmart.

    Duke Cox said it all about CHB.

    2. Still waiting for you to arrive at some sort of coherent presentation, Pear, which should be expected from a Trumpian elitist like yourself..</p

        1. CHB isn’t a Democrat, if I understand your comment.

          And what CHB isn’t telling you, is the real reason I seldom mention “OilyGirlz” is there are so very, very few of them, and because I am a southern boy by upbringing, so a dose of polite where the ladies are concerned is in my DNA.

          Even so, he is wrong.
          I have, in the past, had debates with and have publicly excoriated Kathy “Oh, yes, I drank some fracking fluid” Hall, many times. Kathleen Sgamma is a little different story. She entered the discussion somewhat after my time. She is quite good at spewing the bullshit with a straight face. Puts most of the guys to shame. 

          But, of course, as uninspiring and conflicted ( thereby, inherently resentful) as is the anonymous rocker, Powerful Pear (AKA any epithet you care to choose) is pond scum…willing to repeat any stupidity he hears from the Orange Destruction. No contest, CHB wins that one.

          Of course, should he/she ever decide to tell us who he/she is, he/she might gain a little ground in the credibility standings. 

          But that “Anonymous poster” issue is a different discussion.

           

    3. Well to discuss why something is or is not bullshit, you need to provide a bit more context. On #7, yes the economy is likely in recession, although it is a very weird recession with full employment. But as to the cause, I don't think it's Biden (or Trump) in main.

      On your #8 – what parents???

        1. First off, while the Heritage Foundation used to be a principled conservative research organization, they have drunk the Kool Aid and are a wanna-be Tucker Carlson now. Doesn't mean they can't occasionally be right but be always verify any garbage they spew.

          With that said, from the referenced article's very slanted writing it says:

          Garland admitted, though, that he could not “imagine any circumstance in which the Patriot Act would be used in the circumstances of parents complaining about their children, nor … a circumstance where they would be labeled as domestic terrorists.”

          So even by their biased measure – no harassing.

  8. Senator Mehmet Oz.

    Fetterman had no business being on the ballot. Why didn’t he withdraw when there was time for the state party to put someone else in?

    1. Fetterman has EVERY right to be on the ballot — every candidate has advantages and disadvantages, and the primary created a Fetterman win — a resounding win with 58% of the vote in a 4-way race.  Conor Lamb may not have ended his political career when coming in with 26%, but he didn't show himself ready for prime time, either.

      I've not seen a full explanation of Fetterman's stroke and its likely consequences.  Nor do I have a medical background to be able to absorb one if it is out there.  What I do know — there have been a variety of politicians who have had strokes and continued to serve as they dealt with the aftereffects of the stroke.  Some regained essentially their full prior abilities — some were somewhat diminished — a couple were substantially impaired. 

      I don't know who else might have been on the PA Democratic bench — or how they would have been more effective in opposition to the miserable of Oz.

      1. I find it amusing that Oz is struggling to pull ahead of Fetterman. It's refreshing to see the population favor a candidate barely able to speak than another polished douche. 

      2. "and the primary created a Fetterman win"

        He did indeed win the primary and had his stroke just as people were voting. But that was then, this is now.

        If he wanted to run the steal campaign – which he was running successfully from May until mid-October – he should have stuck with it. But instead, he was stupid enough to go on TV.

        "I don't know who else might have been on the PA Democratic bench"

        Well, to start off, there is the term-limited Democratic Governor, Tom Wolf, who was able to take out an incumbent Republican in 2014 – the last Republican wave election cycle. He should have subbed in if Fetterman hadn't been so selfish as to keep the nomination despite his condition.

        People like you want to indulge the vanity and ego of a clearly impaired politician but the rest of us have to live with the consequences (i.e., Majority Leader McConnell will be holding open all those judicial vacancies until after the 2024 election so that the voters can decide).

        Fetterman has every right to be on the ballot. Indeed.

         

         

        1. Morning Consul (from yesterday):

          “Dems Hold Enthusiasm Edge: for the fifth week in a row, D voters are more likely that Rs to say they are “extremely” or “very” enthusiastic about voting in the midterm elections, 63% to 58%. The 5-point advantage gap is the largest Dem advantage Morning Consul has recorded in 2022″

    2. I think we should all take a deep breath. Why is Fetterman still on the ballot? As far as I’m concerned that’s a Pennsylvania issue, not mine. No one in the PA Dem party wants an Oz win, either and they’re about to be Ground Zero for Fat Donnie’s next election shit show. I don’t think Monday morning quarterbacking on the issue moves any needles in that race.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

89 readers online now

Newsletter

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

Colorado Pols