Wednesday Open Thread

That which is crooked cannot be made straight:
And that which is wanting cannot be numbered.

Ecclesiastes 1:15

34 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. JohnInDenver says:

    We seemed to have avoided Snowmageddon.  3-4" rather than a predicted 6-12" …

    Charlie Sykes of the Bulwark used one of his "Cheap Shots" for Lauren "Bim" Boebert today.

    Charlie Sykes  @SykesCharlie

    No one will ever invite you.

    Quote Tweet

    Lauren Boebert @laurenboebert  18h

    I will never attend the World Economic Forum.

  2. ParkHill says:

    Sinema's a Tool. Hat/Tip to Talking Points Memo:

    Sinema also argued that while the January 6 attack was a source of “concern and fear for every patriotic American,” Democrats had overreacted to it and politicized it.

    “The Democratic Party shared a narrative that said we would not have any more free and fair elections in this country if the United States Congress didn’t eliminate the filibuster and pass a massive voting rights package … That massive voting rights bill was not passed through Congress, and then we had a free and fair election all across the country … So one could posit that the push by one political party to eliminate an important guardrail and an institution in our country may have been premature or overreaching in order to get the short-term victories they wanted.”

    • davebarnes says:

      You misspelled her name—it is Enema.

    • Conserv. Head Banger says:

      Stop complaining. She is still #51 of the senators who either are Dems or are independents who caucus with you Ds.

      How many times in 2021 and 2022 did she not vote to confirm a Biden judicial appointment?

      • unnamed says:

        Fair point.  That said, I hope Ruben Gallego jumps into this race and replaces her.  

        • Conserv. Head Banger says:

          The AZ Dems will need to carefully strategize on that. If Sinema runs as an independent, and Gallego or someone else gets the D nomination, kiss the seat goodbye due to splitting the anti-MAGA vote.

          • ParkHill says:

            Maybe Liz Cheney could move to Arizona and also run as an independent…

            Of course Republicans hate Cheney just as much as they hate Sinema.

          • First: if she runs, it will be as an independent. The AZ Democratic Party censured her before her move; they wouldn't have her on their ballot now if she repented.

            But more importantly, no one group actually likes her. She wants to be a McCain stand-in, but the McCain folks hate her. And a recent poll had Rep. Ruben Gallego losing by a single point to a Republican candidate. Since Gallego only won by a point w/out Sinema on the ballot this hardly seems like an insurmountable obstacle.

    • Chickenheed says:

      If US Republicans follow the lead of Colorado Republicans we may not need to worry about filibusters. AMIRITE, KBB? Gimme a high-five!


      Hey where'd she go?

      • Lauren Boebert is a Worthless POS says:

        The GOP has a virtual lock on 44 senate seats (WV, SC, FL, AL, MS, LA, TN, AR, KY, IN, IA, MO, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX, MT, ID, WY, AK). Maybe Jon Tester survives next year but the GOP still has that newly-elected piece of white trash in OH plus that batshit crazy Ron Johnson in WI.

        A lot of really drastic things would need to happen before the national GOP ends up like the CO state GOP.

    • DavidThi808 says:

      The thing is – she brings up a fair point. Yes voting was made more difficult in places, but it didn't stop people from casting their votes and Democrats winning in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona, etc.

      And yes there was gerrymandering, but most people tracking that said that it was less bad this past time than in 2010. It'll be better if we can get Colorado's redistricting system nationwide but the point remains – this was slightly better.

      I dislike Sinema and I totally disagree with her on Jan 6. But she makes a fair point on the proposed election law.

      • ParkHill says:

        Disenfranchisement is a Republican Strategy

        The entire point of making it less easy to vote is that it has an asymmetric effect that disfavors Democratic voters. Difficult doesn’t mean impossible, but on a statistical basis, each element of voter suppression adds a point or two or four to the Republican column.

        The other aspect of disenfranchising voters is to devalue government, and to make people believe they have no say or influence. This probably leads to 5 or 10 points that disfavor Democrats.

        In other words, Sinema is anti Democratic Party and she is intentionally acting AGAINST us and for the Republicans

        • Conserv. Head Banger says:

          Regarding your last sentence, I thought the job of an elected official was to act in the interest of their constituents? Or did I miss something along the way?

          • Ah, the everlasting debate over what constitutes "representation"… Do you vote the way your constituents tell you, or are you supposed to be the informed person making decisions in the actual best interests of your constituents? The Founders — and most Democrats today — believed it was the latter. You seem to be suggesting it should be the former.

            • DavidThi808 says:

              Or is it a combination where the desires of your constituents are a significant factor, but not the sole driver of your vote.

              Plus the representative is expected to be vastly more knowledagable on the subjects they face. And that means trying to suss our what's going to work best for their constituents, based on that greater knowledge.

            • 2Jung2Die says:

              To put a finer point on this, the framers intended for Representatives to be more responsive to constituents than Senators. Reps are elected to 2-year terms and therefore face constant voter referendums on their performance or the performance of the body. Senators get 6-year terms, originally appointed and not elected, with longer terms seen as a good idea so the Senate could do their work relatively free or freer from rapidly changing opinions.

              Read Federalist 62 at your own peril, but here's a thought about the Senate from it:

              The mutability in the public councils, arising from a rapid succession of new members, however qualified they may be, points out in the strongest manner, the necessity of some stable institution in the government.

        • Chickenheed says:

          "Maybe non-white people and poor people in Republican controlled areas of the country just don't like voting." -Sinema probably.

          "It's just high cholesterol. It's not like we need open heart surgery. We don't need to make any changes." -Sinema probably.

          Unhelpful sarcasm aside, at what point would Sinema be willing to change the rules of the US House to address unfair voting requirements?

          • Washopingmylastpostwouldbemylast says:

            Pure speculation, but it being Sinema and Arizona, I’m gonna’ guess somewhere in the rough neighborhood of 20 to 30 seconds after she’s the declared loser in her next election run???

      • 2Jung2Die says:

        In Georgia, Dems won the US Senate runoff, but lost most everything else – Gov, AG, SOS, state House and Senate, 9-5 R advantage in the US House. I won't try to claim those results were due to voting laws, but to me, that doesn't mean state laws like Georgia's SB 202 are to be pooh-poohed. Like PH said, making it tougher to vote tends to disadvantage the disadvantaged, and in certain states that still tends to mean people of color. SB 202 might not have changed winners or losers in 2022, but who knows if laws like that might make a difference in closer races in future years?

        I'll grudgingly avoid trashing Sinema for not favoring ending the filibuster to pass the federal HR1, but that's where it ends for me. HR1 had a lot of good points that, if passed, would have done a better job of ensuring voter eligibility for more people who should be legally eligible, regardless of the state one lives in. We're worse off as a democracy or democratic republic or whatever anyone calls us for not taking many of these steps, for at-risk individuals in the states where suppressive laws are being passed but also if there's potential for these laws to make a difference in broader partisan dominance.

      • JohnInDenver says:

        Arguing based on outcomes of races, when obviously there are a wide variety of factors that contribute to the final vote tallies, is an approach that invariably is inconclusive.  [Cory Gardner won in a Colorado election conducted by mail ballot — does that mean Republicans have no basis for objecting to mail ballots?]

        Federal legislation (as proposed) had a number of provisions.  They certainly are worth arguing about, but the criteria for whether they are good or not should not be "who won/"  Instead, the criteria ought to be can citizens exercise a right to vote? To my mind, state restrictions have the burden of proof, needing to have some fundamentally good reason to allow states to restrict the franchise. 


      • And now we have challenges and state legal changes to remove even the safeguards that were in place — safeguards that would have remained had HR1 or ecen portions of it passed. Sinema is a grandstanding, short-sighted, self-centered jerk.

  3. Gilpin Guy says:

    That which is Republican cannot be redeemed unless he/she is CHB.

  4. DavidThi808 says:

    Political Blogging is Self-Entertainment, Not Political Activism

    And that's fine. As long as we're each aware that the sole result of our blogging is our own happiness


  5. Jared, Jared, Jared. Your privilege is showing.

    It’s no secret that I, and most economists, despise the income tax.

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.