CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

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*

90%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%↑

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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

50%↑

15%

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Dave Williams

60%↑

40%↓

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

40%↑

20%↓

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
January 17, 2007 04:22 PM UTC

Wednesday Open Thread

  • 96 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Our revolving door never stops turning.

Comments

96 thoughts on “Wednesday Open Thread

  1. Okay, as long as we’re being used as a focus group…let’s take a break and vote on some of this crap…”Latte Mark”…..surely the macaca group can do better than this. I vote no on “Latte Mark”…the label not the Representative.

        1. Wingnut is a great label, that’s why it’s so popular.

          There’s a really good one the wingnuts use to describe liberals. Besides “liberal,” that is. Do you know what it is?

          1. It doesn’t apply to me – I’m much harder to pin down, and I like to make up my own mind.

            Tom Delay and William Jefferson both deserve to get kicked in the seeds.

            OK, I’ll bite.  is it ‘temporarily smug majority members’?

            I know you are about to pee in your pants because you’ve been waiting to drop this on someone.  Plus it’s you, and you’re generally pretty clever and funny.

            1. I was checking to see if you knew what the counterpart to wingnut was. Sorry, I don’t want to be the one responsible for spreading its use on this blog, so you’ll need to check out some right wing blogs to find it. It’s not something I made up because that’s not how my mind works. I can’t make up names about people, even if I can use them when when they fit.

              So you’re not a wingnut? Good, we need less of them.

              1. Screw you, liberal!

                😉

                My best guess is Moonbat.  At least it’s a reference to something else that makes people read to figure out the definition.

                Tell him what he’s won, Alice…

    1. I already pitched the “All Americano Representative Mark Udall,” but Dr. Strangelove didn’t appreciate it as much.

      If he’s running against Caplis he’s going to look like an All American most us.

          1. Those early mornings killed me. My early morning wake up was a variation on the macchiato, which by the way, for the uninformed (not you, but everybody else) means marked with foam. Two raw sugars, about an ounce of caramel with 6 shots on top. Stir it really well, pour it over ice, strain it into another cup, and down the hatch. Delicious and it keeps you awake from 4.30am to about 1.15pm when I would get home.

          1. I used to whip up espresso for a living so I know what a macchiato is. If you think I’m either “leisure class” or a Republican then you haven’t been paying attention.

            If that wasn’t directed at me, then please ignore this and carry on.

            1. so no, it wasn’t addressed to you, and yes I recognize you’re one of the good guys.

              I think I’m just coffee-stupid, or maybe it’s that I never go to Starbucks.  Everyone else here in the office knew what a macchiato was, apparently.  🙁

              1. Actually, thanks to Starbucks, everyone has the wrong idea about what a macchiato is. Starbucks makes what they call a “caramel macchiato,” which is I believe a latte with vanilla and caramel syrup. But if you go to any other coffee place (especially an independent shop) and ask for a macchiato you’re going to get a demitasse with straight espresso “marked” with a dollop of milk foam. The only way to put more hair on your chest is to drink the espresso without that little dollop.

                (Actually, since Starbucks is the 800 lb gorilla of the American coffee scene, most independent shops will probably give you their variation of the caramel macchiato. But they’ll ask if that’s what you mean first.)

    2. What I want to know is whether this nickname is going to be at all effective.  It doesn’t alliterate, and it doesn’t point out any character flaws in Mark.  So why does it work, if it does?

      1. It’s a decade-old Rush Limbaughism. Because it might brand him as an out-of-state elitist, out of touch with regular Coloradans, who drink their coffee REGULAR. See John Kerry-Chardonnay. But I doubt “latte” carries quite that stigma in Colorado. More likely to make someone think, “Hmm, is there a Starbucks within a block? I could sure use a latte.”

    1. You must be one of those well educated liberals I keep hearing about!

      Expanding on that note, I once researched educational levels and voting, the dreaded red/blue thing.  Using official gummint maps, it’s almost a perfect overlay.

      Where educational levels are high, whether by state or county, they vote Dem.  The places predominantly lacking in education, vote Republican.

      Painting with a broad brush, the Repubs can only gain a foothold amongst those without data in their head (i.e., history, the arts, literature, etc.) and lacking critical thinking skills.  As more data gets poured into one’s head, and learns critical thinking skills, the Kool Aid drains out.

      There, that oughtta ignites a discussion!  Off to the state capitol for my volunteer work!

      1. and interesting analysis Dave and PR. Just because Saudi Arabia has investments doesn’t mean they will let oil prices dip to a place where they could cripple Shiite governments. Such prices would have to be astronomically low, and I don’t believe we will see such prices. An honest question: What data tells you that $40/barrel would create huge deficits/debt for both nations? Even if they do force them to go into debt, look at how long so many countries in the world can maintain a large debt and deficit spend.

        I think the Saudis MAY simply be trying to do the U.S. and Bush a favor.

        As for Republicans and Kool-Aid, I must admit I think Kool-Aid is a wonderful drink. It has been scarred forever by Jim Jones and his senseless actions. Why couldn’t he have poisoned some crappy drink for his followers, like “V8” or “Diet Caffeine-free Mountain Dew”?! Alas, he had to tarnish the reputation of Kool-Aid.

        And lastly the education “debate”: I see no reason for it. We could easily digress into a “MY daddy is bigger than your daddy, and I got MY training wheels off before you did!” kind of argument. I would say there are some incredibly intelligent Dems and Reps and at the same time there are some incredibly stupid Dems and Reps. I have always thought education itself is a vague term, and going to school does not necessarily mean you are becoming more intelligent. 🙂

          1. the issue of home finances, but frankly economies based on funds from oil are much different. For example, between the mid 70s and mid 80s oil prices doubled and then got cut in half (http://www.wtrg.com/…), and the economies hurt the most were those of oil-dependent countries such as the US. Oil-producing countries were in the driver’s seat. I feel the home finances comparison is unfair because most people’s discretionary spending is not based upon a budget that is so highly elastic.

            I am curious if you have actual budget data from these countries that show their expenditures being heavily reliant upon maintaining the current price? Or, will they simply deal with the price of oil being “halved” again so soon after it was doubled?

        1. that Jim Jones used.  Probably some discount drink over at the Guiana Sam’s Club or something.

          Of course there are intelligent and stupid people of both parties, no question, no dispute, no arguement.

          But the stats and maps do show that the higher the educational level of individuals, the more likely to vote Dem.  While going to school more may not make one individual “more intelligent”, it hold true that the more education a population has, the “smarter” they are in the real world.  NOT talking IQ in either case.

          1. but I think a discussion on which party has smarter voters is pretty pointless and highly subjective. However, as long as we’re on the topic of education how about we agree to spell in English, not British English(“arguement” would be “argument”). I hate to be so picky, but you did ridicule me for not using capital letters so I believe it is only fair.

            1. “Smart” the left is measured by how many fancy degrees you have in cutting-edge studies like Ethnic Studies and–wait for it–Queer Studies *flash* *bang*.  “Smart” for the right is measured by how you vote on keeping America safe from the Jidhadists and how you vote on keeping our wallets safe from greedy tax-grabbers.

              1. Having one too many tonight?  You’ve let down your civility a bit this evening.

                So far as I’ve seen recently, “smart” for those leaning towards the social authoritarian / economic libertarian (that’s the “right” as currently defined by their own beliefs) consists of blindly stampeding after whatever issue their leaders say is important today.  Taxes Bad; Must Sacrifice Liberty; Random Brown People Bad; Liberals Are Terrorists.  It’s farcical but disturbing.

                  1. Though Gay Studies / Queer Studies is a bit after my college days, Ethnic Studies and Women’s Studies were there and in full swing.

                    Maybe instead of ridiculing them, you might consider just what value a full understanding of ethnic differences brings to tasks like governance, sales, and marketing.  For a double major or as a minor, they’re a great addition, IMHO.

      2. You would have come to the same conclusion if you’d overlayed drug use and election results.  The places with the most dopers vote Democrat.  Painting with a broad brush, the GOP can only gain a foothold amongst those with THC in their heads and lacking critical thinking skills.

        If your data on education and voting is correct, the Dems and the Teachers Union will correct the imbalance shortly.  Except for the areas dominated by Limousine Liberals (Boulder,Aspen,Telluride) the areas with the best schools (Cherry Creek,Littleton,Douglas County and parts of JeffCo) are dominated by hard working Republicans. 

          1. Except for the areas dominated by Limousine Liberals (Boulder,Aspen,Telluride) the areas with the best schools (Cherry Creek,Littleton,Douglas County and parts of JeffCo) are dominated by hard working Republicans.

            Boulder is the FIRST exception that I mentioned.  Do you want to work on another comeback? 

            1. Mea culpa, Lester. But you mention 3 Dem school districts to 3 Rep districts (“parts of Jeffco” can be offset by “parts of Denver”). So your point is unproven.

              1. The parts of JeffCo that don’t do too well are up north and Edgewater where the Dems have taken over.  I can only think of one very small area (a neighborhood really) in Denver that does pretty well.  That would be Southmoor.  Since we now have limited school choice, I wouldn’t be too surprised that there are areas in Adams County or Pueblo that do well too.  Word gets around and the parents get their kids to those schools.

                1. Not uniformly, but East High School serves the Denver Country Club, Cherry Creek, and Hilltop neighborhoods while Southmoor and Willshire are served by Jefferson. Those are two well rated schools, the best in DPS.

                    1. I can’t afford to live in those areas either. I live in SW Denver. But I can try to get my daughter into one of those schools. But who knows what will change in the next 10 years or so. I graduated from Manual when it was a good school (just going by memory I can think of about a dozen kids in my class who went to elite colleges like Harvard, Columbia, and Stanford, and there may have been more). I’d be surprised if Manual’s last class sent even one kid to a college like that.

            2. Boulder isn’t that upscale. But you knew that already.

              How do some other school districts fare? Like the ones where Grand Junction, Greeley, and Lamar fare?

              1. I would expect Grand Junction to do well, not so well in Greeley or Lamar.  Mostly consistant with my premise.

                I’m a CU grad so I did my tour of duty in The Peoples Republic.  It doesn’t look that upscale, but housing prices would argue for upscale.  Parts of the County are very upscle.

                  1. so is Greenwood Village, plus parts of Littleton, Centennial and (believe it or not!)Aurora.  Some Counties are nore upscale than others.  I’m not sure there are any downscale (is that a word?) areas in Boulder, Eagle or Gilpin Counties.  Arapahoe has north Aurora.  Not upscale unless you compare it to Commerce City.

                    1. and parts of East Boulder fit the description pretty well. They’re out of the way for most students. Longmont and Broomfield (the latter is now its own county) used to be pretty comparable to places like Arvada, Northglenn, and Westminster (lower- to plain middle class, with some nicer areas) but I don’t know what they’re like today. You may be right about Eagle and Gilpin counties, but they have a lot of workers in those places – they have to live somewhere not too far away.

                    2. Gilpin is, BTW, one of the formerly poorer areas in the state, what with all the old mining towns not doing so much.  The gambling has changed the ability to provide decent services, but it hasn’t changed the fact that there are a lot of people living in run-down old houses in their meager retirements.  I paid a whole lot less for my house than I would have had it been located 20 minutes in any direction other than West (aka Boulder, Clear Creek, or Jeffco).  Perhaps you were thinking of another area?

                      Much of Clear Creek is about as well-off as Gilpin.  Eagle has its (very) upscale parts, but they aren’t universal.  Same with Summit.

                      BTW, is it “upscale” if it costs 50% more than another area, but you get the same exact house/services/etc?  Would you consider a 300sf. apartment in NYC “upscale” because it costs a half-mil?

        1. I read in an op-ed piece in the Denver Post today, and I have yet to check this myself, that 11,000 more people voted to make Marijuana legal in the state. Now, I dont condone the use of marijuana, beer being my recreational pleasure provider of choice, but that simple fact is astounding.

  2. Here’s what I think will happen on the R Side in CD 6.

    Wiens and Harvey are preparing for a major battle, dividing up Douglas County.

    Will Armstrong gets in soon from AC.

    David Balmer will not run.

    Baisley got spanked by Harvey in Senate primary last year – don’t think he’ll make another trip to the woodshed.

    Jane Norton is considering a run and would be the 800 lb elephant (being recruited by the National Party).

    In the end, I say money and/or power wins – so its Norton’s if she wants it or Wiens if he spends it.

    So go ahead and adjust The Big Line accordingly.

    1. Geez, are the national guys even interested in this race.  It’s a slam dunk, Republican seat.  The national guys won’t even care who the nominee is.  Norton must be dreaming if she thinks they will get involved.  Besides, she is a nothing as a candidate.  Never elected to anything on her own, chosen by Owens for his Lt. Gov.  Never even really ran in an election of her own.  No grass roots base at all.  I say she gets spanked if she runs.  My guess is that its Wiens or May, whoever can put together the money and campaign.  And of course, the swing area is once again, Jeffco. 

    2. Clyde – you just proved you’re  either shuckin for Wiens or seriously getting your info third person. 

      NRCC hasn’t even polled in CD-6 yet.  Until that actually happens, they aint touchin the primary with a ten-foot stick in your stated “woodshed”.

      Someone else will get in – make no mistake about it – and will clean up the delegates in Arapahoe and Douglas that Wiens and Harvey will ignore.

        1. Then Clyde – why didn’t you just SAY SO?  Big difference, man, between “National is recruiting her” to “friends have called her and asked if she’s interested”.

          Next, you’ll tell us those friends are Karl Rove (ya – that’s the ticket) and Condi Rice. 

          Look – every one’s being polite here, but Norton ain’t running.  As nice as her husband is – and as terrific a public speaker as she is – she ain’t runnin. 

          And ya know what? She’d probably loose.  Yes. That’s right.  She’s NOT the secret weapon the Owens hacks think she is. 

  3. To address serious budget concerns and the future of the Colorado Promise Governor Bill Ritter suggested that we have a “conversation”. What leadership. Are people beginning to realize that this guy is clueless when it comes to running a state? Yes, of course windmill farms are the answer to every problem.
    On family planning funds he is imposing so many strings that the major provider of those services Planned Parenthood will be kept out. All it took was some bullying from the Archbishop and Governor Ritter caved in.

    1. I guess having a “conversation” and listening to what both experts and ordinary people say before making a decision is somewhat foreign to you.  I can understand. The results of the governing style of “the decider” have been stellar.

    2. The state constitution outlaws using any state tax money to support abortion services. That amendment passed in 1984. Planned Parenthood delivers a variety of reproductive services, most of which are health screenings and family planning.  In order to receive state monies for these non abortion services, Planned Parenthood separated their abortion services from their other functions. The democratic administrations of Lamm and Romer had no problem with this. Owen did. He looked for ways to stop funding Planned Parenthood and an independent audit found that the state monies were indirectly supporting abortion. Owens cut off funding to comply with the state constitution.  Family plannning and health services were reduced, severely in some rural areas.

        Where Owens looked for ways to cut funding to Plannned Parenthood, Ritter is looking for ways to restore funding, consistent with the Constitution.  Evidently, the crux of the matter is that to separate out completely the abortion functions would be prohibitedly expensive. Ritter pledged to work to find a solution.  To call that, “putting strings” is just crap.

      That is not “caving” to the Archbishop, that is adhering to the law.  Chaput knows that if funding is restored, his response should be a legal challenge. 
      He is just posturing now.  I think Caput did use Ritter years ago. He asked Ritter, as Denver DA,  to do  a review of all Archdiosece (I can’t spell it and I don’t care) personnel records from 1992 forward. Ritter announced that there were no pedophille priests currently working  for the Bishop and there were measures in place to appropriately screen personnel in the future.  What Chaput knew and I don’t think Ritter knew, was that there had been charges of child molestation prior to 1992, not known to the public and those priests were still around.

      I wonder if Caput is the “political figure” who urged Caplis to run for the Senate….there’s someone who carries the water for the Bishop.

      1. It is my belief that Chaput knew of the charges of molestion made prior to 1992. I don’t know for sure.  I wish that Chaput would let attorneys review all the personnel records, including those prior to 1992.

        1. I said that Owens cut funding and he cited an “independent audit.” See, Owen WAS the governor who cut Planned Parenthood funding. Owens is catholic and ran on a prolife platform, whatever that means.  Owens vetoed the emergency contracptive bill  and said on the Rosen show that he vetoed it because he did not want Catholic hospitals to be “co-conspirators in the crime of abortion.”  that is not caving; that is an elected official violating his oath of office to uphold the constitution which makes abortion a civil right, not a crime.

            Ritter is NOW the governmor and he has NOT done anything with funding for Planned Parenthood; he only indicated he would like to restore funding.

          I am exhausted…and I have to stay away long enough to hear Hank Brown announce his decision to resign from University of Colorado to pursue “other interests?”  my god, every old fire horse in the state is hearing the fire bell…..Brown has already been a senator….and is probably one of the most popular politicans in Colorado…plus he is unique…he actually put on the uniform……Would somebody lock Romer in the attic until the deadline for filing for the Senate passes…..!

  4. Tomorrow, the House will take up a bipartisan bill to fix the problem of the oil companies not paying royalties under for the last 6 years or so….being friends with Bush and Cheney and all that… – The Clean Energy Act of 2007. The bill is “aimed at recouping lost royalties and stripping oil and gas companies of other tax incentives,” and would “shift $13 billion into a fund to promote energy efficiency and development of alternative and renewable energy sources.”

    Sounds like something Ritter’s staff should pursue.

    1. After staying up all night ranting about stuff he don’t understand with my buddy Bob, Sir Robin rolled out of bed at the crack of noon and decided to join us.

      So Sirrah, who won?

      1. I remember your posts past. You’ve been a cheerleader for this shameful, $1.2 Trillion dollar, 3000+ American lives lost and 20,000 wounded, as well as the conservative estimate of 34,000 Iraqui lives (many innocent, and many women and children)war. The blood is on your hands, too! You better sleep in tomorrow.

        1. Our troops have brought liberty to a brutally oppressed country.  When Iraq is safe and free you will be morally culpable for your weakness.  And I hope, regardless of your agenda, you pray every day for our success.

          1. …have acquitted themselves as best possible given impossible orders and no goal lines.

            Without being supplied with the right armor, they’ve held themselves to “minimal” casualties (“only” 3026 dead and about 20,000 permanently disabled).  Without sufficient forces or adequate authority they have kept the violence “down” to only about 35,000 deaths this year in Iraq.  Without a well-motivated partner in the Iraqi Army and Police, they have at least marginally kept the country together for another year.  Reminds me of the quote: We the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful.  We have done so much with so little for so long, we are now qualified to do anything with nothing.  We as a country, led by our President, have not done well by our soldiers, who volunteered to fight a war on terrorism only to be sidetracked into a boondoggle in Iraq.

            You want to support the troops?  Call for an increase in taxes – especially from the upper classes, who can afford it – to restock our depleted military supplies.  Call for a universal draft to locate enough troops to do the job “right” – if it can still be done at all without just letting the place go.  Call for the impeachment and removal of the Commander-in-Chief, who doesn’t even *know* any of the numbers stated above, or isn’t willing to admit them in an interview; if he doesn’t even know the basic summary, he doesn’t deserve to be in charge of our children, spouses, and friends on the military field of battle.

            Or, better yet, join the call for a re-deployment that allows us to maintain some small semblance of stability in the region while following the will of the Iraqi people – get our troops away from this bloody civil war safely and quickly.

            Do you want to support the troops?  Ask your Congressperson to support bills recently introduced in Congress to provide the benefits our veterans deserve after serving their one two three four tours of duty in Iraq.  If you want to show that Republicans really care about our troops, make sure they join the Democrats in Congress in authorizing the funding required by the VA to fully treat those injured and/or traumatized in Iraq.

            Do a number of the above, and I’ll think you care about the troops.  Until then, stow the phoney canned phrases.

      1. Failing to collect mandated taxes? I don’t think that equates to high crimes and misdemeanors. But waging an illegal war based on lies at the expense of thousands of lives, both American and Iraqi innocents, is. Those lives can never be “avenged” to their satisfaction….little guy.

  5. Someone needs to tell Clueless Bill that talking and praying and studying will not solve problems.
    Leadership will solve problems but that word is not in
    Clueless Bill’s vocabulary.

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

72 readers online now

Newsletter

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