U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet

(D) Phil Weiser

60%↑

50%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Jena Griswold

60%↑

40%↑

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

(D) J. Danielson

(R) Sheri Davis
50%

40%

30%
State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(D) Jeff Bridges

(R) Kevin Grantham

40%

40%

30%

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
November 17, 2006 04:20 PM UTC

Open Line Friday!

  • 58 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Let’s go to the phones.

Tweet
Share

Comments

58 thoughts on “Open Line Friday!”

  1. With a new anti-war sentiment in Washington, we should be careful that it not become an anti-all-things-war-including the-troops sentiment.  There was a time when academics and even cutting edge writers and artists were up front in supporting a war effort.  I have in front of me a copy of the New Directions annual for 1940 (before Pearl Harbour and America’s entry into the war), published in Connecticut.
    It reads:

    “This book is dedicated to The Men of the Royal Air Force.”

    And then goes on (in the vein of a John Kerry perhaps?):

    “It is unlikely that any of them will ever see a copy of New Directions, or that they would be particularly interested if they did, but can there be much doubt that the future of free culture and the kind of writing that New Directions stands for depends in great measure upon the outcome of their courageous battle?”

    This was an ignorant statement of course, because some of the writers that would appear on New Directions’ pages were then fighting in the RAF.  So many poets leapt from the ranks of the RAF, that a short while later, Neo-Romantics John Pudney and Henry Treece edited an anthology called Air Force Poetry (British, Commonwealth, and Free French).  Sadly, six of the 33 poets who appeared had already been killed in action.

    1. This Iraq war was a war of choice, not necessity…and as we all know now, the world was told lies…and yes, I’m sure that in the tragic loss of nearly 3000 American lives…there were more than a few poets among them. Nothing poetic about that….but criminal…yes!

      What is the presidents plan to get us out? Quagmire. Let’s see if Shrubs daddy can help.

      1. President Roosevelt knew that the Soviet Union murdered 9,000 Polish officers, but blamed it anyway on Germany. 

        By-the-way, in the preface the editor of New Directions makes a direct appeal for America to rearm to meet the threat to freedom posed by the Nazis.  This was a year before Pearl Harbour.  Many academics, writers and artists saw war as necessary then to preserve their freedoms.

        New Directions 1940 features a Surrealist short story by Weldon Kees.  At the time he was cataloguing special collections for the Denver Public Library.

        But my main point is that this building anti-war sentiment shouldn’t go off on the troops.  Seymour Hersh already has.  Any thoughts?

          1. Just a few weeks ago, in a speech at McGill University, Hersh said that “there has never been an American army as violent and murderous as our army has been in Iraq.”

            That’s what I mean by going off on the troops.

            How are you, my friend?

              1. So you agree with Hersh that “there has never been an American army as violent and murderous as our army has been in Iraq”?

                Tell that to the 6th Marine Division in Okinawa.

                Hersh writes like an old Stalinist.  It’s as balanced as some of the writing in The Nation, circa 1935.

                I see you freely quote JFK.  Is this the same JFK who meddled in South Vietnam and allowed the assassination of that country’s president?

                1. Yes, the same Kennedy.  His anti-communism policies and beliefs seem quaint and misguided today, but he was reflecting the feelings of most Americans. 

                  I’ll wear the shoe of “going after the troops” – because I do hold them responsible for their actions – if you will admit that they are the most violent ever.  Just one is a soldier doesn’t mean that they get a free pass on morality, ethics, or the law. Where’s your good ole Republican insistance on personal responsibility? 

                  And just what does this discussion have to do with the 6th Marine Division in Okinawa?

                  Achtung, Baby!  (U2, love that phrase.)

                  1. I am not sure that JFK’s complicity in the assassination of an elected head-of-state reflected “the feelings of most Americans.”  I haven’t seen the data to support that, which is probably why it was done as part of a covert operation.

                    I do not agree that “they are the most violent ever”, which relates to the image I offered of the 6th Marine Division in Okinawa.  Read some of the first hand accounts of that campaign if you want to get a sense of what really raw warfare can be like.  Read, and then come back to me with your thoughts.

                    And I’m not a Republican, but do believe in personal responsibility, and note the great forbearance our military exercises in trying to minimize civilian casualties.  I look back through history and compare today’s pin-point attacks with the mass bombing of the past (with civilian deaths as its point) and wonder just what Mr. Hersh is drinking.  Hopefully a nice whiskey, he can afford it.

                    Achtung, Baby?

                    1. Ironically, contrary to your statements, civilian casualties are higher in modern war than at any other time in history.  About 9 civilians are killed for every soldier.  This is not because our troops are murderous; it’s the natural consequence of the increasing level of technology and subsequent changes in strategy.  America has been lucky that such conflicts with their extremely high civilian casualties don’t happen here; but it doesn’t justify our imposing the same conditions on others.  Nearly twice as many civilians have now died in Iraq as in the American civil war, though the overall casualties for the civil war remain higher.

                      Our troops are not responsible for this.  Our leaders are responsible for this.  But don’t tout the wonderful ability of our military to avoid civilian death, because it’s not true.

                    2. The ratio has changed because warfare and medical treatment has changed, but your statement that “civilian casualties are higher” now is nonsense.  32,326,700 civilians died in World War II.  14 percent of the total population of Russia was killed, 11 percent of Germany, 16 percent of Poland, 12 percent of the Baltic nations, 7 percent of Yugoslavia — over 3 percent of the entire world’s population was killed.

                      This just doesn’t happen anymore.  We don’t firebomb whole cities to get at a few factories.

                2. But if what you say about him is accurate, then there’s little to worry about. Oh, the real hardcore lefties will probably be tempted to after the soldiers but no one else will. Unlike the Viet Nam era, when right wingers were just as bad as lefties (they were ashamed of the perceived “failure” of the troops and did not give them welcome home parades or admit them to veterans’ organizations) most Americans know enough to embrace the troops and thank them for their sacrifice. Most Americans know that the failure lays at W’s feet.

                  Of course we shouldn’t pretend that every American under arms in Iraq and Afghanistan is a saint – there definitely are murderers among them, and it’s likely that some incidents won’t be uncovered. But it’s a safe bet that that’s a very tiny fraction of the troops at large. If some old hippy wants to spout off about that being proof that our armed forces are the most murderous in history, let him. No one but his very small choir will listen.

                  2. they were about the only ones that gave a shit.  Problem was most of the guys I knew didn’t want anything to do with them.  We just weren’t interested in hearing about Iwo Jima.  I remember a year ago or so, some stray a legislator was found falsifying his claims to service so he could join the VFW.  It was sooo pathetic.  Over 30 years later I’m still not interested.  Life is just too precious to spend it with your butt parked on a bar stool.

                    Hersh is a two edged sword.  He can be a great journalist, and then turn around and seem to make stuff up.  He was the one that forced Abu Ghraib out in the daylight, but then he made claims of  other things that he never delivered any proof on.  Still, when he’s good, he’s very very good.

                    Wars are messy, all wars.  Our Army still has pretty good discipline all things considered.  They are mostly dealing with the morale issues better, much better, than in ’70-’71.  Right now I would expect a lot of them are wondering if they’ve been hung out to dry.  Both parties are real good at walking away from their little ‘policy mistakes’. 

                    1. but I know that some major organization (I want to say the VFW but don’t know for sure–if you were there you can enlighten me) refused membership to Viet Nam vets until the Rambo/Reagan era. I remember it being on the news when they finally let them in.

                    2. Like many non-vets, I’ve been in a number of vet orgs a number of times.  In fact, I once officiated a wedding in a “Hispanic” vet org.  Mostly, I feel saddened that whatever military service they did was the high point of their life in terms of meaning and excitement. 

                      I buried Tom, dead at 62, perhaps killed prematurely from the petrochems that he lived with in a tanker in the the China Sea during Viet Nam.  Fill up at Clark, then disgorge as needed up north off of the coast.  A constant oil slick around the vessel, he told me. 

                      Tom’s life was downhill after that.  All he had to cling onto as he went into hospice was his lifetime memberships in the VFW and American Legion.  It was so sad.  As I write, I see his smile, his sense of humor and fatalism.  Thank you Tom for your gift to me, of allowing me to serve you.

                      My father spent three years in the Coasties shipboard in WWII.  His first tour was in an illegal “Q ship”, he had no protection from the Geneva Convention or whatever it was then. He could have been shot without trial.  His second ship would have put him in the landing crafts in the invasion of Japan.

                      He came home to his wife, started a family and a business, and never dwelled on the war.  He was proud of his service, but never wore it on his sleeve.

                      Today he is 89, as is his wife, my mother.  He is very fit but suffering from Alzheimer’s.  It’s not real bad yet, but a challenge to all of us.  I visited two weeks ago and found myself loving nurturing him.  We went to waterfront bars, talked, ate.  But he is going away, a little bit every day……

                      Thanks for letting me write this little tribute to him.  His name is Walter Verizzo.

              1. which is why we should proceed to it with great reservation.  Bush ignored the Constitution and the Congress let him do it (with only patriots like Lincoln Chafee voting NO).

                1. and I would add one comment about the disproportionate amount of civilian casualties in current warfare vs. the past.  We are waging war currently in an environment in Iraq where the enemy uses the fact they can intermingle with, terrorize, and hide amongst innocents as an advantage (i.e. human shields, suicide bombings, hostage taking, etc.). They not only use it as a military advantage but a psychological one (i.e. – the americans killed this innocent Iraqi for no reason). I am not giving a free pass to the US soldiers for what they are doing, but the situation they are in at least bears mentioning.

                  It makes you think how crazy those old European wars were, even the US civil war, where the combatants wore distinct, identifiable uniforms, lined up on each side of the field, got their cannons and bayonets ready, and just started firing at each other.

                  1. Smoothbore muskets instead of rifles.  The only way you could hit anyone (outside of those old Daniel Boone shows) was to mass your people together and fire as a group.  That also created a target to shoot at.  Carnage, but at least it was away from the innocents.

            3. Although I am not an expert on Hersh, I have my own opinion on what is meant by “the most violent and murderous army.”

              Before I explain I want you to know I have family in Iraq.  I support my family and the troops. However, I do not support the actions that some of the troops have made because of their misguided messianic beliefs.

              In all wars some men think of themselves as gods in many ways. They believe in the power that they hold after an invasion and occupation gives them control over the civilians, the meek and humble.  Sometime this belief also comes from frustration, such as being in a situation where you are on breaking in doors every night without any real goal in mind, other than fear and submission.  A combination of misguided views becomes ingrained. 

              I am not saying that the soldier is misguided going into battle, but after being their for months, or even years, without a purpose but rather occupation and submission, they become confused.  That leads to a lot of wrong.

              This messianic belief a soldier has allows him to rape, murder and torture the innocent. 

              Our troops have been put into that situation. I do not blame them for being there.  I blame Bush, and Bush alone.  However, the soldiers have acted on their own part in many cases because of failed policy that has allowed them to.  Bush has created this disaster, that many of wish never was.  Especially me. 

              We have family and friends who have made the ultimately sacrifice for this war.  But our President has failed us. 

  3. Looks like the Republicans are exacting a little revenge on Pat Toomey and the Club for Growth’s losing the U.S. Senate to the Democrats, a la Lincoln Chafee’s race in Rhode Island.

    Boehner defeated the Club for Growth’s endorsee, Mike Pence, as minority leader in the House. The vote tally was 168-27 with one vote for Texas Rep. Joe Barton.

    Blunt, current Republican House whip, was elected to keep his whip’s position, defeating Club for Growth endorsee, John Shadegg.  Vote tallies were not announced at this writing.  Blunt’s connections to Tom Delay did not cause him to lose the race. 

    Both Pence and Shadegg are “100 pointers” in the Club for Growth’s rankings, with Pence being infamous as a “Benedict Arnold” on illegal immigration votes that the Club for Growth would support. 

      1. As the Club for Growth’s chairman said in 2004, in an impassioned plea for the passage of Senator Kennedy’s bill on guest worker programs:
        ” . . . (I)f America is to remain prosperous and free, we must KEEP OUR GOLDEN GATES WIDE OPEN . . . for low-skilled Mexican migrant workers . . . .”
        http://www.rnha.org/…

        Congressman Pence’s betrayal of his congressional district on illegal immigration was the subject of a New York Times article, “Star of the Right Loses his Base at the Border.”  I’ve read it.  You can read it here for a small fee but even without a fee you can read a short abstract of the article for free here:
        http://select.nytime…

        Republicans don’t understand the Club for Growth’s agenda on open borders–which is fine by the Club for Growth–as long as it can get its agenda enacted.
        http://www.forthecau…
        http://www.coloradop…

        The loss of majority control of the U.S. Senate to the Democrats actually advances the Club for Growth’s support for senate versions of bills on illegal immigration–meaning that the loss of Republican Lincoln Chafee’s seat in Rhode Island to the Democrats was a gain for the Club for Growth’s agenda on guest worker programs.  As the Club for Growth said on its website, replacing Republican U.S. Senator Lincoln Chafee with a Democrat “wouldn’t be much of a loss . . . as he would vote the same.”  Maybe, but, with the control of the Senate now in democrat hands, thanks to the Club for Growth in Rhode Island, the Senate versions of open border bills/guest worker programs are clearly the order for the day–to the Club for Growth’s delight. And then the Club for Growth even has the temerity to lie about somone like Jay Fawcett’s position on illegal immigration!
        http://www.coloradop…
        http://www.coloradop…

          2. If laid off textile workers and other unemployed citizens are for NAFTA, CAFTA and everthing that comes AFTA, then the Club for Growth’s position on illegal immigration is the position to support.  If anyone thinks that the Club for Growth’s positions are based on benefitting the public at large, they’re nuts.  They’ve got to cloak their agenda to line the pockets of the biggest, richest, fattest cats in America.  And as they do it, they make the rich richer and the poor poorer.  There is NOTHING charitable in its intentions on illegal immigrants.  They’re only taking advantage of the immigrant poor while making the poor unepmployed citizens all the more poor.  The Club for Growth is against taxes all right.  It doesn’t want its fat cats to be taxed the true costs of illegal immigrants while it takes advantage of them and us. I can’t say the CFG is right even if for the wrong reasons.  It’s just simply wrong for all its reasons. 

    2. Given Pence’s rather anemic showing (168 to 27), it would appear that the club for growth is not living up to its name.  I trust that the new U.S. Rep in C.D. 5 followed Pat Toomey’s instructions and voted for Pence…..I envision that scene in the Manchurian Candidate where the mad scientist is downloading new instuctions into Raymond Prentice Shaw’s brain. 

          1. Sweet old Angela Lansbury was never scarier. And despite the ultra low tech way they made it they have some very effective editing and effects. Good dialogue (remember when they used to strive for that in movies), superior acting, a tense story… A real classic.

      2. In Connecticut, democrat ideologues could go hammer and tong at Lieberman–who pledged that he would caucus with the democrats if elected as an independent.  So, either way that race went, the Democrats wouldn’t have been down the seat they needed for majority control.

        In Rhode Island, the Club for Growth’s idealogues did not care–or,if they did, very little–if they cost the Republicans majority control of the U.S. Senate.  Why is that?

        Again, the Republican electorate is ill informed about the Club for Growth’s agenda.  It is an ECONOMIC club for growth, not a SOCIAL conservative club.  Losing control of the Senate, and thus losing control of the Senate judiciary committee and control over federal judge appointments while Bush still has two years in office, was not nor has it ever been its concern.  It’s MONEY that is its concern. 

        But, you can be sure Lamborn follows Toomey’s instructions, however.  What’s going to be fun is watching the Minute Men howl like stuck pigs when Lamborn votes with the Club for Growth on immigration issues.  If Lamborn were a viable candidate in the 5th CD who could stand up on his own two feet, he might break ranks and vote against Toomey’s instructions.  If he wants to get slapped down and lose that money in the 2008 primary, he’ll disobey Toomey.  I don’t think Lamborn wants to lose that federal paycheck.  If he’s a good a lawyer as he is a public speaker, he’d starve practicing law. 

        2. I disagree with his theories and the consequences that we have had to live through.  “Good riddance” may have been abrupt, but I wasn’t going to write an essay. 

          The dead don’t need compassion, BTW.  Com = with you, passion = pain.  I don’t feel his pain.  He has none. For the people who loved him, certainly. 

  6. http://thinkprogress…
    The rumors that chief White House political architect Karl Rove will leave sometime next year are being bolstered with new insider reports that his partisan style is a hurdle to President Bush’s new push for bipartisanship. “Karl represents the old style and he’s got to go if the Democrats are going to believe Bush’s talk of getting along,” said a key Bush advisor.

    Other elements are also at play: The election yesterday of Sen. Trent Lott to the number two GOP leadership position in the Senate is also a threat to the White House and Rove, who worked against him when he battled to save his majority leader’s job after his insensitive remarks about Sen. Strom Thurmond.

    And insiders report that Bush counsel Harriet Miers isn’t a fan, believing that Rove didn’t do enough to help her failed Supreme Court nomination among conservatives. In fact, one top West Wing advisor said that the unexpected ouster of Rove aide Susan Ralston over ethics questions was orchestrated by Miers as a signal to Rove to leave. The advisor said that Rove is aware of the situation and that a departure might come in “weeks, not months.” A Rove ally, however, noted that he has a record of out-witting his critics.

  7. You can get caught with your fly open and diddling a teenage page and elicit sympathy, while a drug hoarding radio host gets a pass for using his housekeeper as a pusher. That same host can then get caught with sex drugs in a bogus bottle at an airport, coming back from an all male weekend in one of the child sex capitals of the world, but his radio show doesn’t miss a beat. Meanwhile, the former (we assume) foot fetishist Dick Morris is still Sean Hannity’s favorite hack, pontificating out his pie hole about all things anti-Hillary. Oliver Iran-contra North has his own TV show, with former felon G. Gordon Liddy holding court on radio. A compulsive gambler is not only kept on radio, but given a spot on CNN, while telling the world about morals. Newt Gingrich, the disgraced speaker of the House and multiple marriage man, is still the go-to guy for Hannity on Fox. A man who reportedly married his third cousin (then divorced her), one of 2 (or is it 3?) marriages, just announced his presidential bid; the other GOP bidder a self-proclaimed philanderer, as well. But God help you if you’re a woman against a war with a champion you want to promote to leadership; a person who helped raise the war debate to a campaign issue that carried your party to power, but loses that race. Let the corporate clucking begin.

    h/y firedoglake

      1. I think Alabama and Mississippi have the highest rating of marriage between cousins. I would suspect Kansas first, but apparently not. 

        Guiliani is a no good hack who doesn’t have a studdering chance in hell.  He needs crawl back under that rock he came from.  Im still amazed that Republicans cheered for this fearmongering SOB at the 2004 RNC.

  8. conducted by the Unites States, with the most progressive government in the world (or is that now debatable?), then you might argue against Senator Leahy’s request. This is the place to hear those arguements for us Coloradans.

    ……

    In a letter addressed to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, chairman-to-be of the Senate Judiciary Committee Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has requested the release of documents that outline the Bush Administration’s interrogation policies.

    If the request is not met, the Democratically-controlled Judiciary Committee will have the option to subpoena when the new Congress begins in January.

    Will we regain some moral parity in the world that we’ve estranged with the new Congress?

    1. interrogators used torture.  He kind of looked like a cross between a metro-sexual and G. Gordon Liddy (a waxed dome wearing she-she glasses).  “All the best” interrogators.  Can you imagine?  Next they’ll be handing out armbands as fashion accessories.

    2. Needs to a mass mailing of subpoena’s to the entire bush administration to answer for everything that they have hid and kept from the American people. 

      Rumsfeld and Cheney should be sent a subpoena on a daily basis.

      Turn you head and cough boys for it’s time to play by the rules!

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

87 readers online now

Newsletter

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

Colorado Pols