President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(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
October 09, 2006 03:24 PM UTC

Monday Open Thread

  • 49 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Here we go here we go (repeat).

Comments

49 thoughts on “Monday Open Thread

  1.   Finally, the GOP gets a break and something to take voters’ minds off Mark Foley:  North Korea’s detonates a nuclear device! 
      Meanwhile, the hunt for weapons of mass destruction goes on…….in Iraq!

    1. Here is a golden opportunity for the dems to say “Republicans are weak on National Security they let a country that was widely known to be developing nuclear weapons test a nuclear weapon!”

      Of course there is some debate as to whether they actually detonated a nuclear weapon, the ability that it had (as in whether it was a “successful” detonation), and whether they will be able to duplicate it.

      To clarify by if they actually detonated a real weapon, they may have packed the test site with a massive amount of munitions to give the appearance to assert whatever stupidity Kim Jong Il is trying to push today.

      1. about what the US can actually do to stop a country determined to test nukes. We can threaten sanctions, even invasion, but if a foreign sovereign power is determined, about all we can really do is punish after the fact.

        1. …because our brilliant leaders made a threat assessment in 2002 that Iraq posed the biggest threat to our security because it had weapons of mass destruction and ties to al Queda. 
            So we invaded that country.  And guess what we did NOT find when we got there? 
            Meanwhile, the second and third prongs on the infamous “Axis of Evil” (Iran and N. Korea) have repeatedly flaunted the fact that they actually have WMDs, our leaders announce that this is “intolerable,” and then do nothing about it. 
            This DOES make the world a much more dangerous place for young people growing up.  When we were growing up, we could at least take comfort in the fact that the Godless Communists in the Soviet Union and our leaders were trying to make rational decisions based on self preservation.  That was how we survived the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s. 
            We don’t have that anymore.  We have Islamic religious nuts in Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia who are anxious to die for Allah and collect their rewards of 13 virgins in heaven.  We have Christian religious nuts in our own country who see rapture and the Second Coming approaching over the horizon and want to go meet it halfway.  And of course, we have a paronoid delusion nut in North Korea. 
            Be afraid, be very afraid…..I know I am!

            1. You get the virgins too.

              Interestingly, I read an article a while back about translations to the Koran that implied that martyrs did not receive virgins, but in fact received white grapes. Apparently there is similarity in the spelling which has evolved over time to become virgins. Man are those people going to be pissed. Truth be told, I would rather take the experienced women over the virgins. Thats just me though.

              1. I’ve heard about the white grapes/virgins thing too – apparently some scholars think a lot stuff from the Koran has been mistranslated or interpreted incorrectly by Islamic revisionists.

              2.   You’re right, they’re gonna be royally PO’d.  And we’ve seen how ruthless and violent they can get her in our temporal world.  Imagine the hell they’re raising in the hereafter when they’re handed their bunch of seedless grapes….

  2. This is potentially bad news for this young generation…..the cold war worked because men who knew war manned the buttons and the barricades….people in power now don’t know that horror….think it is a game…video chess…I pray that we will not be Iraq before this game is over….

  3. Diana DeGette must be so proud of her sister over at Colorado Confidential.

    http://www.csindy.co

    Not more than 2 days after 9/11/2001, she blames US policies 1991-2001 for the 9-11 attacks – but not once does she mention Clinton.  Somehow, during that span, it was Bush 41 and Bush 43 who are to blame.

    Not the poor fanatic Muslims who were victimized by the US during the  ’90’s.  In fact, she says the hijackers were brave.

    I vote for Cara DeGette to be ambassador to the Taliban…

    1. In coming weeks, then, it’s going to be up to all of us to make sure our government leaders don’t take the opportunity to let our government seize unprecedented power by extending the tentacles of police powers.

      Two days after 9/11, she had the situation pegged I’d say.

      She does mention Bill Clinton in the article, actually, when talking about Sandy Berger.  Use Ctrl+F in your browser, you’ll find it.

      She mentions Bush ’41 because…he did this little thing called “Gulf War I” that began a general policy of bombing in Iraq.  I thought she made that point well, and seemed to blame our overall policy–which you’re right, did continue under Clinton–not specifically Republican leaders.

      1. the Gulf War that was responsible for 9/11 huh?  And, simultaneously, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

        And we wouldn’t want the US to be able to track calls going from the US to known terrorists.  They could just be talking about the weather after all.

        Nor would we want a way to defend ourselves against incoming enemy missles.  As long as we get back to Clinton-style policies, no one will want to hurt us…

        And just because the missle defense system hasn’t worked perfectly in trials, we shouldn’t work on it.  We should have taken the same R&D approach with the rifle, the tank, submarines, jets, & missles.

        1. First of all,  Bin Laden has said that one of his main motivations in jihad against the US is that we had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia. Where, if you are unfamiliar, is where the Islamic faith’s holiest sites are located. They were stationed there in the lead up to the Gulf War.

          When do you think the last time Bin Laden used a phone was? How about al-Zawahiri? How about any terrorist connected with Al-Qaeda? I am willing to bet that it has been so long that they probably forgot how to use one.

          Incoming missiles from whom? North Korea doesnt have the capability with their ICBMs and China’s, while more advanced, are not even close to being up to snuff enough to be guided to a city. Really the only country that could theoretically reach inside the US is Russia.

          Dont even try to compare NMD to the rifle or tanks. That is the most illogical statement I have ever heard in relation to technology. Number one: The project is way over budget and has yeilded zero results. Number two: during our test runs, when we knew and programmed into the defense system the exact trajectory and speed of the missiles, they failed, repeatedly. And since we are on the subject, when was the last time a terrorist had an ICBM?

          1. I was responding the last guy, who wrote “he did this little thing called “Gulf War I” that began a general policy of bombing in Iraq” as he was defending Cara DeGette’s column.

            As for the phone thing, I feel confident that there are more than a few terrorists out there and many of them use phones.

            Finally, to your comments about the missile defense shield, you are very misleading.  The last test, as were some of the other tests, was successful.  Many were not.

            http://www.nytimes.c

            Anyway, why would we wait for these other countries to hit us with a missile before we tried to defend ourselves?  Isn’t this a primary lesson of 9-11?  To be more proactive?  Why would you put a kevlar vest on after you get shot?

            We cannot be pacifists and expect everyone to start liking us again.  There will always be people coming after us and some will try to take it to the next level; it is a matter of time.  To think otherwise is naive.

            1. Just because you were responding to someone else doesnt mean that I wont call you to the carpet for making outlandish statements.

              “As for the phone thing, I feel confident that there are more than a few terrorists out there and many of them use phones.”

              My only hope is that you are not part of the intelligence services of this country. The people who have become the terrorist are pretty old school. And by old school I mean they dont need cell phones which they know can be listened in on, but they have personal messengers who can be trusted. They also use money changers who conduct business on a person-to-person level. Its hard to monitor monetary transaction and cell phone conversations when they dont have them.

              What about this test made it successful?
              ““This test was as scripted as it can be,” he said. “It’s a very complicated test, technically, but it’s much simpler than dealing with an actual missile launch would be.” In a real-life attack, he said, far less would be known about the timing, trajectory and characteristics of an incoming warhead.”
              And since the basic measures that were supposed to test the ability of the missile defense didnt deploy I guess we will have to wait until round two to see how that works out.

              “Anyway, why would we wait for these other countries to hit us with a missile before we tried to defend ourselves?  Isn’t this a primary lesson of 9-11?  To be more proactive?  Why would you put a kevlar vest on after you get shot?”

              Whatever lessons were learned on 9/11 sure werent heeded by this administration. I like your analogy, and it seems to be apt considering that we have a gaping chest wound called North Korea.

              Who said anything about being a pacifist? Going to war for the sake of war is stupid. There is literally no other word I can think for it. Going to war with insufficient troop strength is ignorant. Yeah, they will always be coming after us, but it is completely unintelligent to goad them.

          2. Bin Laden was generally pissed off and offended that Kuwait came to the US for help with Saddam because he personally offered his and his Mujadin’s services.

            Of course, the Kuwatees were smart enough to know that wasn’t a very viable option and they went with the big guns, but most analysts I’ve read trace that event as the real turning point in Bin Laden’s personal hostility towards the states.

            He and many of his associates were actually under the impression that they chased the Russians out of Afghanistan around 1990 because they’re holy army was ordained by God for victory, so they just couldn’t believe it when their offer was turned down.  If it just didn’t have such a tragic result, the actual story is kind of funny.

          3. Mr. Toodles, you are absolutely right. Bin Laden was pissed that US had troops in Muslin lands….and he launched a campaign to get them out….and we are basically gone from Saudia Arabia…proving, of course, that terrorism works. Violence is very effective…particulary when your opponent is a drunken frat boy fool.. God save the United States.

        2. The Gulf War certainly had something to do with 9/11: the base in Saudi Arabia was one of bin Laden’s primary causa belli, and we wouldn’t have had that without the war.  It was by no means the only reason, though.

          Iraq had, well, nothing to do with 9/11.  It’s pretty simple.  No-one from Iraq participated, no-one from Iraq helped to plan it, and no-one in Iraq’s leadership supported al Qaeda.  Time to face the music on that one.

          I think it would be marvelous for the US to track calls going to known terrorists.  I also think that the Bush Administration can more than sufficiently document to a court – within three days AFTER the call – enough cause to get a warrant through FISA.  They could also get a standing warrant under the PATRIOT Act.  They don’t need to start warrantless wiretapping of US Citizens to boot.

          About those enemy missile defenses: just who did you want to defend against?  Russia has already modified their missiles to avoid our so-called missile defense system.  China doesn’t have enough missiles to launch at us (that we know of).  And North Korea can’t seem to get either an ICBM launch or a nuclear test right (and don’t tell me an 0.5kt was “right” – none of the defense analysts thinks it is…)

          Why spend billions on missile defense when you could be spending it on port security – radiation detectors and chemical sensors?  Where is our next threat coming from in your opinion?

    2. If you read the article, you would see that she does not blame the bushes. She blames the president’s policies starting at the first gulf war. She blames Poppa Bush, Clinton, and W’s Policies. She is right on the money.
      OTH, reading through your postings, it shows that you have no real knowledge about Al Qaeda or intelligence. You are simply repeating what you are spoon-fed by your party. If you even think about this for a second you will realize how foolish you sound.
      OBL has evaded USSR for a decade. Then evaded poppa bush, clinton, and now W. In fact, the person who should have had the easiest time was W (due to sympathy over 9-11) and has squandered that by invading another nation, rather than paying attention to stopping Al Qaeda. Even now, he has made it next to impossible for us to stop NK with conventional forces except by bringing back the draft or by using other means.

    1. Which one of ‘us’ blamed Americans for being responsible for 9/11? 

      Which on of ‘us’ said that those hijackers were “balsy”?

      Which one of ‘us’ started pointing fingers (at America no less) 2 days after it happened?

      1. I have to say, commenting that the hijacker’s weren’t necessarily ‘cowards’ or whatever the tagline was right after 9/11 was got old Bill Maher thrown off the air.  Is that really an issue though?

        It really has nothing to do with how patriotic, liberal, or conservative you are if you have a differing opinion on what the ‘courage’ factor needed to hijack a plane and crash it into a building might be.

        Suggesting that people are somehow treasonous or misguided just because they applied a technically neutral adjective (being balsy or having courage aren’t necessarily good things in and of themselves; it would be balsy to start shouting biggoted remarks at a civil rights rally, still doesn’t mean it’s a good thing)is just annoying.  It’s not a value judgement.

        Let’s not play the rhetoric game – you can go with the standard line that the hijackers were “cowards,” or you can think that it was “balsy,” but I don’t think anybody is somehow advocating their actions or suggesting that it was anything less than wrong.

        1. was balsy to write that article 2 days after the towers fell.

          As for the politics – both sides of the aisle have politicized it.  But Cara DeGette started the blame game 2 days later!  And amazingly, she blamed it on the Bush family’s policies during the ’90’s and early 2001.  Political arch-enemies were still kissing on TV for another month!

          Not only was her timing disgusting, but her thesis was intellectually lazy and wrong on many levels.

            1. Pat Buchanan & Ann Coulter.  But they both call themselves conservative talking heads, writers, etc.

              Ward Churchill calls himself a university professor and Cara DeGette calls herself a non-partisan journalist.

            2. Marilyn Musgrave.  WHERE IS that savior of tradditional family values???  NOWHERE to be seen — NOTHING to be said about House leadership!!  These people are unbelievable.

  4. For those interested, http://www.KRCC.org has the audio to the Oct 5 debate on their website.  It’s about 47 minutes long.

    From the audio, Fawcett totally outclassed Lamborn.  Then again, I’m biased against Lamborn, plus Fawcett spoke in a style very familiar to me.  I thought he did well enough that I could even come to decide my vote might even be a pro-Fawcett vote rather than just an anti-Lamborn vote.

    A video would be interesting, though.  Remember there was a big difference in impressions between those who listened to the Kennedy-Nixon debate and those who watched it.

    1. I should add a comment about the moderator.  I’m not sure if he was just reading questions supplied by someone else or if he had some say in the wording of the questions, but the wording of the questions was generally biased against an antipicated Republican response.  It would have taken some poise and experience for Lamborn to handle the questions well – something I think he just didn’t have.

  5. Just found this on Politically Direct’s Blog at http://www.politically-direct.blogspot.com.

    Evidently, the League was caught coordinating questions with the Noonan campaign for a candidate forum scheduled for tonight. Here’s an excerpt.

    “In the race for Senate District 22, the “non-partisan” League sent out a series of questions to both candidates that they intend to ask at a candidate forum to be held in the district this evening.

    The list of questions from the “non-partisan” League was two pages long and covered a range of issues that are important to voters.

    On the second page of questions, however, it appeared that answers had been added to a few of the questions.

    A closer look revealed that the answers were straight from the website of Democrat candidate Paula Noonan…and so were the questions!

    In copying text for questions from Noonan’s website, the “non-partisan” League copied the answers too and forgot to erase them from the second page before sending it to Mike Kopp, the Republican candidate.”

    1. I see you’re really mad mostly because they had the gall to schedule a candidate forum the same night as a Broncos game.

      The rant you link to might be interesting, if you chose to cite actual material.  Like, the questionnaire.  Or, where on Noonan’s website the questions were supposedly copied from?

      As it is, you have exactly one question which is different in both citations (neither with links), but similar in half its words.  It’s pretty weak, even for the right-wing blog fever swamp.

    2. I’m an R in this district. I was at that forum. Kopp and Kerr didn’t show. Noonan and Dittemore were there. Everyone at the forum was disgusted by Kopp and Kerr’s absence. Kerr showed up just long enough to say that he wasn’t going to answer any questions from anyone. Kopp never came. The questions from the audience (for the Ds there to answer) were mostly about immigration and why we spend so much for so little on schools. Sounded like a pretty friendly R audience to me.

      Check the website Right On references: Politically Direct. Checking the secy of state’s data Kopp gave Politically Direct over $6,600 in the third quarter alone. Politically Direct is run by Rob Fairbank, the same one that filed a frivolous campaign finance complaint against Kopp’s primary opponent, Kiki Traylor.

      So Right On, is R O the first two letters of your name… Rob?

      Sounds like Fairbank is well paid to post accusatory columns on his website, file finance complaints against his employers opponents, and be the #1 Kopp shill.

      Kopp’s finding out that if you don’t have the backbone to stand up in front of the voters it costs a lot of money to have someone cover your tracks.

      1. where consultants and mail shops are concerned, $6,600 does not sound like a lot of money to me.  Since you mention Kopp’s primary opponent, how much did she spend on consultants and mail shops?  I took a cursery glance at the SoS web site and see that Kopp was out spent 2-1.  Maybe Kiki should have hired Rob…  at 1/2 the price he can win you a primary.

  6. Why, roughly three months after Bush saying they were part of the “Axis of Evil” did the U.S. announce that it will release $95m to North Korea as part of an agreement to replace the Stalinist country’s own nuclear programme, which the US suspected was being misused?

    Astoundingly,in releasing the funding, President George W Bush waived the Framework’s requirement that North Korea allow inspectors to ensure it has not hidden away any weapons-grade plutonium from the original reactors.

    President Bush argued that the decision was “vital to the national security interests of the United States”. What did he mean by this? In his Master Plan, he’ll use this as an excuse to bomb Iran. Oh, he’s a tricky one. And extremely dangerous.

    1. if it had run about 5-10 seconds longer. It sounded like the moderator was trying to take control of the situation and I would have liked to have heard how that went.

  7.   George Allen has a new problem and it doesn’t involve racially charged epithets and coming out of the closet as a Jewish man.  It’s money and ethics.
      According to CNN, Allen “still holds stock options from his time as director of a high-tech company, but has failed to disclose them to Congress and the public the past five years.”
      He also asked the Army to help a business which gave stock options to him.

  8. The Post endorsements seemed pretty reasonable, except for HD33.  Regardless of party affiliation, why is the Post endorsing the bumbling Bill Berens who just had his legislative salary effectively doubled by the Colorado Oil and Gas Association (all together now: coGA, coGA, coGA).

    Question:  would this kind of ‘prize’ be illegal under Amendment 41?  And if it wouldn’t, what would stop groups like COGA from holding a big ‘ole drawing every year of their favorite legislators and giving away 50K to whomever wins?  (2nd place, a trip to Hawaii, 3rd place, weekend at Aspen condo, oh, did we mention only 3 legislators were put into the drawing?)

    Ridiculous.  Ridiculous, ridiculous.

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!