President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(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

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

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

52%↑

48%↓

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 18, 2007 04:00 PM UTC

Thursday Open Thread

  • 112 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

We’ll save a seat in our luxury skybox for you.

Tweet
Share

Comments

112 thoughts on “Thursday Open Thread”

  1. From a recent leader (6 January) in the Spectator (London):

    “The news bulletins over the Christmas holiday were dominated by the vengeful execution of the deposed leader of a ruinous country.  The leader, of course, was Nicolae Ceaucescu, the country Romania, and the year 1989.  That Romania, together with Bulgaria, has just made the then unthinkable step of joining the European Union — the conditions of membership of which have required it to prove it is a modern democratic nation — ought to be a matter for celebration in its own right.  Moreover, it should provide some optimism as to how far Iraq — though hardly likely ever to become a member of the EU — might have travelled as post-totalitarian in 17 or 18 years’ time.”

    1. that Iraq today and Romania in 1989 aren’t really comperable. Romania fell from within; Iraq’s government was toppled from without. Romania was stabilized quickly; Iraq is in a state of civil war. The list of differences grows from there.

      I’d like to be optimistic about Iraq’s future but Romania’s situation 17 years ago isn’t enough like Iraq’s to make me feel that ay.

          1. I was in Romania last year and saw a tape of the trial and the subsequent execution of ceaucescu and his wife.  At one point he realized he was going to get it and just resigned to the process of the hurry up kangaroo court. However, his crazy ass wife kept screaming at the court like they were still at her beck and call and how they were making such a grave mistake. 

            After the 20 min trial they propped them up against a wall, blindfolded, facing toward the soldiers, and both were shot in the head, one shot each.  Pretty grisly.  However, considering what they both did to the Romanian people it was certainly warranted.

            The Ceaucescu’s sucked everything they could off the backs of the people and lived very very well while most of the country was in severe poverty.  The “peoples palace” he built in Bucharest (in honor of himself) is still the second largest building in the world, second only to the pentagon.  Amazing.

      2. Romania, like the rest of the socialist states, collapsed under tremendous economic pressure.  These states had economies that were fundamentally incapable of continuing to function.  The communist party dictators were not investing in infrastructure nor were they making sound economic decisions.  At a certain point, that leads to a complete collapse of the functioning economy causing a massive humanitarian crisis. 

        Likewise, Iraq was functioning under a command administrative economy and was headed for certain economic disaster.  The only difference was the Iraq had oil revenues that Romania did not have.  Regardless, Iraq was on a course of disaster.  Iraq was much more likely to strike out with nuclear or biological weapons when all collapsed in a last ditch effort to save a fundamentally flawed economic system. 

        You point out that Iraq was toppled from outside while Romania fell from within.  I propose that it does not make any difference who pushed humpty dumpty off the wall.  Either way, the economy was incapable of functioning post crash.  Given that economies are the strongest driving factor in a country’s foreign and domestic policy, it is crucial that the economy be reconstructed to become a viable 21st century economy.  That is where Iraq and Romania start looking similar.  Now Romania, almost 2 decades later, is a functioning productive member of the EU.  If Iraq is a functioning and productive member of the world economy in 15 years, wont that be something to be proud of?

        1. If Iraq is a functioning and productive member of the world economy in 15 years, wont that be something to be proud of?

          It will be, should it occur. But there’s another crucial difference between the two – Romania did not descend into civil war after the governement fell.

          You say it doesn’t matter who pushed Humpty Dumpty off the wall. I say that’s actually a crucial point. When revolutions occur it reflects that a segment of the population is ready for a new way of doing things. The Iraqi people have been down for so long (not just under Saddam, but a long line of oppressive governments) and opposition activity so completely crushed that there was virtually no popular will for a true democracy.

          The Iraqi people have been down for so long (not just under Saddam, but a long line of oppressive governments) and opposition activity so completely crushed that there was virtually no popular will for a true democracy. This reminds me of Europe following World War I when the old empires were broken up into new democratic nations. By 1938 every one of these new nations, except Czechoslovakia, had become authoritarian/totalitarian regimes on their own (no Nazi invasion or annexation necessary). The people of these countries had long been used to authoritarianism and didn’t know what to do with democracy.

          I hope it’s not the same with Iraq, but again I see little to give me hope that it will be otherwise. Especially when our government demanded ideological purity from those who went to help rebuild the country (something that wasn’t a requirement for those who have helped Eastern Europe develop.)

  2. ……will Tom Tancredo release all of his mental health records regarding the diagnosis made and/or treatment he received for his mental disability (i.e., depression) which prevented him from serving in Vietnam?

  3. That there’s another right wing politician who did everything he could to personally avoid military service but now wants to commit the military all over the world.

    1. He wants to committ or troops to the mexican border at arms length apart to fire upon anyone who steps within a hundred feet our illegal work force building The Great Wall.

  5. Personally, I can’t stand to watch the smirking chimp. His chuckles and smiles about the debacle in Iraq are sickening. Remember these lines from his initial State of the Union:

    “[T]his is my solemn pledge: I will work to build a single nation of justice and opportunity.”
    –

    “Today, we affirm a new commitment to live out our nation’s promise through civility, courage, compassion and character.”
    –

    “I will live and lead by these principles: to advance my convictions with civility, to pursue the public interest with courage, to speak for greater justice and compassion, to call for responsibility and try to live it as well.”

    Expect more of the same BS.

  6. from a recent interview with Maliki:

    Maliki spoke slowly and seriously for most of the conversation, but occasionally broke into a smile, such as when he was asked whether Bush needs him more than he needs Bush. “This is an evil question,” he said, laughing.

  7. Finally, can we give a big jeer to Senator Arlen Specter who bent over backwards to strip the Congress and the American people in being able to vet the people that Bush appoints as US prosecutors. Of course, Specter decided that no one would be worried to be investigated by an extreme partisan player who might have political reasons for trying to destroy their target. Evidently inserting this little item into a bill without any discussion was Specter’s gift to Bush.

    According to the original law, the Attorney General could appoint interim U.S. Attorneys, but if they were not nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate within 120 days of being appointed, the federal district court would appoint a replacement. The new law wiped away that 120 day rule, in effect allowing the administration to handpick replacements and keep them there in perpetuity without the ordeal of Senate confirmation.

    When Specter helped Bush undermine the judiciary and prosecutorial arms of our systems, he betrayed our Constitution to benefit the interests of a President who wants to institute a tryanny where arbitrary and capricious application of the law is the norm.

    As Digby noted once, there is something ironic about how those who were most opposed to the Soviet Union are the ones who are most anxious to adopt their despotic policies.

    1. Under lunatic fringe in the dictionary it’s got your picture. It’s hard to imagine anyone actually agreeing with the crap you spew. But thanks for sharing!!! Perhaps an STD you picked up during unprotected sex is responsible for you increasing delusions?? Considered seeing a Doctor????

      1. He’s a lunatic for being against an authoritarian president? Go Read John Dean’s book, Conservatives without Conscience and you tell me who the lunatics are.

        1. Cite serious sources.  The reason the Left in America is viewed more as a cute little relic from the 60s is that they read and cite unserious stuff like John Dean’s book.

          Dean wastes a lot of ink on useless psycho-babble.  The idea that cosnervatives are naturally authoritarian while the enlightened beacon of Truth (naturally being the Left) is a fount of open-minded ernestness is ridiculous and laughable than anybody would take it seriously.

          President Bush is hardly authoritarian.  Perhaps you weren’t around for Pol Pot or Stalin (and if you were educated in public schools I’m sure you haven’t heard of them).  THAT’S authoritarian.  Bush may be a little too wedded to Big Government but he’s not an authoritarian.  Rhetoric like that makes you look fringey and unserious.

          1. Authoritarian means a government that does as it pleases and hold itself accountable to no one. A true description of Bush’s government? No. An accurate description of his style? I’d say so.

          2. Come on doctor, give us the whole picture of a modern day, young, white, male, (overweight?), college educated, devoutly religious, politically active, ultra-conservative.  What do you most despise about the left?  Is it the decline of values in America?  If yes, which values is it? 

            1. You’re an insightful guy, Okie.

              I am a modern day, young, white, male, thin, college-educated, devoutly religious, politically active, center-right conservative.  Very close!

              What do I despise about the Left?

              Their unseriousness about the big issues facing our country.  Values, obviously, play into that.  But I really cannot stand the unserious stance on the War on Terror which threatens our very national existence.  Europe right now, by all indications, is caving into the Islamists and will soon be majority Muslim.  I root that sad event to the pasty multicultural fluff the Left in Europe has been pedaling for 40 years.  When you secularize and de-culturalize your country it creates a serious void which is enthusiastically filled by very anti-Western Muslims.

              Here in America, thank God, we have it much better–mostly because we are, in the words of two writers from the Economist, “A Right Nation”–fundamentally conservative.

              But the Left has put a formiddable chink in our conservative armor.  The despicable “deconstruction” of institutions like marriage and Church have been dangerous to our national ethos and cultural confidence.  America has always believed itself to be the best nation around–almost chosen by God to be a beacon to the masses (in the words of Wintrhop, Lincoln, Reagan, and Bush).  We have always vigorously maintained traditional values and institutions like faith, the family, and commmnity.  The game plan of the Left has been to change the definition the family, undermine the infuence of faith, and insert into our communities giant nanny-states that replace local, community control over the vast array of human problems.

              That I despise.

                1. The Muslims in Europe, polls show, want the place run by Sharia-Law.  That’s in direct conflict with Western values of pluralism and tolerance and democracy and the rest of liberalism’s goodies (which I whole-heartedly support).

                  Pat buchanan is far right.  Bill Clinton is center-left.  Michael Moore is far left.

                  1. The Muslims in Europe don’t even constitute a majority in Spain.  Fantasies of them taking over Europe don’t make it so.

                    BTW, from the Political Compass (2004 election candidates):  Kerry (D) is classified as a centrist authoritarian/laissez faire (that’s center-right); Bush (R) is classified as hard authoritarian/laissez faire (that’s hard right); Baradnik (L) is classified as centrist libertarian/hard laissez faire; Peroutka (C) is classified as far authoritarian/hard laissez faire; Cobb (G) is classified as center libertarian/collectivist (that’s center-left); Nader (I) is just to his left on both axes; and Brown (S) is center libertarian/hard collectivist.

                    Take their test; my guess is you fall somewhere near Mr. Bush.

                    (To define terms, the authoritarian/libertarian scale defines government control vs. individual rights, the collectivist/laissez faire scale defines economic centralization vs. deregulation.  Political Compass calls these fascist/anarchist or authoritarian/libertarian and communist/neo-liberal or collectivist/libertarian.)

              3. Since you told us what you do for a living, we lefties might just take a trip into the CU library and when we see someone who fits your physical profile, whisper, “Pssst.  Schaffer!”

                The reaction would tell us.

                BTW, western European nations have followed your dread secularism since WWII and what do we find?  A much more tolerant society, everyone has healthcare, no more war, no more extreme poverty.  Better mental health. Not so bad.  And they now have more class mobility and are making millionaires much faster than we are.

                I’m a Christian, although of a far different ilk, Doc.  But I think Sam Harris is essentially correct.

                1. lol.  Hey, anytime you want to come on up to the Big U you’re more than welcome.  The employees there are about as liberal as they come so I’m sure you’d enjoy the company.

              4. Conservative men don’t fight. Don’t put on the uniform. Don’t give up a paycheck and material comforts to serve their country. A history of nonparticipation in their country’s military.  too good to fight.  it is their responsibility to stay home and rule the masses.  bombastic balless wonders of the western world. 

                1. Old fashioned conservatives are as patriotic as anyone, maybe even more so if military service is the yardstick.

                  From a bleeding heart liberal….

                  (PS, I think there are many ways to serve a nation, and military service is only one.  But it seems to have a lock on the concept.)

                  1. Neocons, to a man and woman, do not serve in the military. They lack the combat experience to make seasoned judgements about strategy.  My comment refers to those who wrap themselves in military aura and proport to be patriotic…more than others….and who do not serve.  I was adding to the list of characteristics, I am talking about putting yourself in harms’ way. I am not talking about anything else.

          3. Dean served in Nixon’s paranoid administration, so I have a little more confidence in his evaluation of what constitutes an authoritarian President than yours. He was close friends with Goldwater, who was going to help write that very book until he fell ill? Would have called Goldwater, one of the philosphers of modern conservatism a fringy source?

            Get serious. Bush is an authoritarian President because the so-called “neo-con” Congress allowed him to be.

            We are in the majority now, with a mandate from the people. So who’s on the fringe now?

            1. And neither are most Democrats.  I have never called the Democrats fringy…though some–like Murtha and Dingle and Feingol–have certainly shown themselves to be disproportionately out of touch with the rest of America.  And being in a congressional minority certainly does not put you on the fringe.  I understand completely the collective exhaltation of the liberals now that they’re in the majority.  That’s why we’ve seen a rush to the familiar canard–“the American people are behind us.”  Because your blue team is now the majority does not at all mean that you’re policies are favored by most Americans.  And it does not mean that all Republican policies (of which there are precious few) are outside the mainstream.

              1. Because they are.

                So, when Boosh squeaks by with 51%, he reflects the American people.  But when he get’s a “thumping” by those same American people, Murfa, Dingle, and Feingold are out of touch?  Sounds like they are what the American people want for at least another two years. 

                And, BTW, at least Murfa isn’t a chickhawk, unlike virtually the entire Bush administration and neocon peanut gallery.

            2. ……and then again when he went to bat defending his gay grandson.  I think Goldwater was the last conservative who actually demonstrated family values!

          4. Bush:
            * is spying on peace groups
            * is ignoring the Constitution in favor of what he says is necessary
            * is wiretapping domestic phone calls without a warrant
            * is overriding regulations (put in place by Republicans) that grant local input on land use and conservation
            * is jailing citizens and legal residents without charges and without representation

            In general, the current GOP leadership is of the opinion that people should bow to the government’s views – that the people (except when it comes to taxes) are secondary to the rights and needs of the government.

            That’s Authoritarian.

            1. Signing statements that allow him to disregard the law that he has signed into law. On top of that, trying to break down the founding principles of checks and balances. Look at Gonzales recent congressional hearing for references.

          6. You chastising people for not using serious sources when you have asserted many contentious, and blatantly false “facts” while providing no sources to back them up. Hilarious.

      2. Guess we both bonked the same hoe…..

        Seriously, what’s wrong with this post.  Pretty much factual and strict interpretation of events.

        I’ve often mentioned that in high school, 1964, a class in “Communism vs. Americanism” was mandatory to graduate.  At that time I also did a lot of short wave listening, including Radio Moscow.

        Fast forward to teh 21st century:  My American government is using the very same tactics for control of the people, to strip the Constitution, that I was so warned about.  The lies promulgated by Bushco sound just like the Soviet ones (“big harvests”, “winning in Iraq”), and Fox Spews has replaced Radio Moscow.

        Authoritarianism is the enemy of democracy, whether fromt the right or the left.  Unlike leftward authoritarianism, rightward is often granted through the people themselves, being manipulated with lies and propaganda.  (Leftward is most often achieved through revolution and grabbing power.)

        Righties tend to like authoritarianism, that’s why they love the authority of a religion, too. 

        1. “We love the authority of religion?”

          Parsy,
          Do you seriously believe that people–the polls indicate about 80% of us–get into religion because of our addictions to authority? 

          I’m going to jump out on a limb here, but pehaps it has something to do with the vacuity of modern society and the eternal longing of human beings to find meaning in things.  And there is not more important source for ultimate meaning and Truth than God Himself.  What’s fascinating is that I find people of faith to be the most inquisitive, the most feisty, and the most anti-authoritarian of them all!  The Left offers the same, tired appeals to liberal orthodoxy just as readily as believers appeal to divine authority.

          One of the most prized beliefs of the Left is their portrayal of people of faith as numb-brained, Bible-thumping androids who have little capacity to think for themselves.  That’s disgraceful, really, because Christians have a long-standing heritage of contributions to philosophy, science, and culture.  They continue to do so with or without the approval of the cultural Left.  There is a tacit liberty offered by belief in God–particularly the Christian God.  Because of Christ’s redemption of humanity on the cross it literally frees us from the doldrums of sin.  It allows us to overcome our sinful natures to do great things for the world.  Far from authoritarian, Christianity is centered around the notion of freedom of will.

          1. That’s not a jab at all Christians, just the dominionists.

            What I find interesting about arguments from the dominionists is that they like to cite how many Americans are church-going Christians. But many of them are not in lockstep with the Falwells, Robertsons, and Dobsons of the world and don’t support their vision for America.

            Keep in mind that many on the left are church-going Christians too. My father, as pious a man as you’re likely to meet, is also as liberal a man as you’ll meet, more so than I am. He is liberal because he is Christian (charity to the poor being a major theme of the New Testament). He’s far from the only one who has made that connection, so keep that in mind when you discuss faith in America.

            1. They are dead-wrong on policy but they are good people.  One key idea of conservatism is that culture, not politics, the the primary engine for societal change.  I have not problem fighting tooth and nail about social security and welfare and the rest of it with liberals.  But the big change came in teh 60s when the cultural became the political.  It used to be that both conservatives and liberals would attend church together and hold the same core Judeo-Christian values about sex and charity and the rest of it.  That’s why during the Kennedy era there was suchy a broad national consensus–we agreed on the important stuff.  Now the polarity is between a largely secular, humanist Left and religious, “National Greatness” Right.

              About the dominionists and Falwell…

              Don’t link Dobson with Falwell.  I love Dobson but cannot stand Robertson or Falwell.  Dobson is very well respected by Christians while Falwell and Robertson have but a limited, hard-core constituency.

              America, Peter Berger the great Princeton sociologist wrote, is a nation of Indians governed by Swedes (Sweden being the most secular and India being the world’s most religious).  A whopping 45% of Americans go to church weekly.  That dwarfs the paltry 5% of most of Europe.  And most of those Americans are Bible-believing folks.  To be decent and Bible-believing you don’t have to believe the same things as Pat Robertson.  His self-annointed ‘prophecy’ is wholly un-Biblical IMHO.  But the church-goers largely believe in core Christian beliefs about Christ and morality.  That’s why on most major issues there is so much polarization (abortion is 50/50, gay unions or marriage is 50/50, etc.).  Half of the country–the red part–is church-going and traditional.  I include most Coloradans here.  The other half is secular and liberal.

              The great battle in America is between those who want to to look more like Europe and those–myself included–who pine for an America centered around the family and church.  I think in Colorado the battle is tilted our way.  But the culture war is like a see-saw–back and forth it sways and at times both sides appear to be either screwed or inevitably victorious. 

              It’s that battle that I’m most concerned about.  And that’s why I’m into politics. 

              1. America is much more diverse than secular-left and religious-right. To see Americans as being explicitly one camp or the other is simplistic. It ignores the secular-right (think of business interests falling into that category – whatever their personal lives they don’t bring it up in public policy debates) and religious-left (who are starting to re-emerge). Then there are those who don’t really fit any of those categories. They may be quieter and don’t get much attention, but they control the direction of our country because those who identify with one camp or the other will always be in the minority, and since they aren’t loyal to any particular political philosophy it’s up to the politicians to appeal to them. Claiming that a majority fit into any of these camps is untrue.

                Values are always changing and never static. Don’t kid yourself that they’ve gone unchanged for millenia.

              2. All a matter of degree… OK, Dobson is far less the nut jobs the other two are, but “respected” is stretching it for the larger, non-evangelical population. 

                As to 45% of Americans going to “church” – does that include Jews and Muslims and Bahai and Quakers? – I literally can’t see it.  I don’t see it in cars moving from homes to churches on Sunday, I don’t see the traffic jams around the churches.  All those “surveys” use self-reported data and a lot of folk will state their attendance exaggerated.

                I feel sorry for you, in a friendly sort of way.  You live in this fantasy of an America that never existed, you are more concerned with ideology than results.  Yes, there is a lot about America that has changed for the worse since I’ve been alive, but liberalism is not the cause. 

                Strong families came about as a result of labor laws, Social Security, progressive taxation, Medicare, the separation of church and state, and so many other things.  When people did not have to work three jobs to put food on their families, they could go to PTA meetings, do good through the Elks, and so much more.

                I remember when the burning question was, “What will we do with all our leisure time in the future?”  That was a serious question in the 1950’s, 1960’s, and even into the 1970’s.

                Then Reagan was elected……..

                1. Don’t you live in Denver?  Where you live determines a great deal how you view the rest of Colorado or America.  Come out to the ‘burbs sometime.  If you’re in Denver–littered with the dwindling ranks of the mainline–you’re not going to see much action on Sundays.  In the ‘burbs–and the rest of the state for that matter–Sundays are the hoppingest place on earth!  I tell people that it’s not the paltry nightlife that’s hopping on the weekends in Denver–it’s the megachurches spread throughout the metro area.

                  I know some folks view us Christians as quaint, yet naive relics of a past that never was.  I’m not naive.  I’m well aware of the cultural dynamics going on throughout America.  The culture is split nearly 50/50 on matters of faith and morals.  In “red America” we are far different than those in “blue America.” 

              3. Again, you refuse to cite sources. I assume that you would have the sites from which you culled this information bookmarked to provide in a debate such as this. All you are saying is your opinion. Dont ask something of a person when you refuse to provide it yourself.

          2. Dominionist Christianity (as preached by Dr. Dobson and others) is very strongly based in authoritarian structure.

            Let’s take an example: Southern Baptists.  The Baptist faith was formed in part on the belief that each person must read and make their own interpretation of the Bible.  However, the current Southern Baptist creed specifically refutes that, and says that only a very narrow interpretation is valid.  This change came with the centralization and control of the SBC.

            Being an extremely religious person myself, and growing up in a devout Presbyterian family, let me give you my view of attending many different kinds of churches: most people who attend church do not do so out of a true understanding of God, but rather out of the comfort of belief that His dictates are good and moral, and out of the peace of moving together with others and hearing the words of inspiring leaders who re-affirm those beliefs.  This is not necessarily “bad” – good things are certainly done in the name of God based on just that core of beliefs and the societal structure that the church provides as an outlet.  But that does not change the vital nature of most organized religion; it is a foundation of peace and direction for a populace looking to be led, and it is a place ripe for the picking of those who would control others in an authoritarian manner.

            Dobson, Robertson, Haggard and others do/did not lead their congregation based on freedom of thought and individuality.  They lead based on dogmatic control of “moral values”.  They gather their flocks based on the promise that whatever you do, you’ll be okay, because you are saved.  Jesus taught peace, and respect for women, and complete forgiveness and understanding; he taught that good deeds are the basis for Judgement, not good beliefs.  See the difference?

          3. Where did Hitler get a lot of his support from?  The Lutheran and Catholic churches.  Look at his quotes about God sending him and all that bullshit.  The conflation of faith and his authority was full. 

            As to the salvific Jesus, I find that barbaric and theologically weak.  It is a remnant of societies that used offerings to appease gods.  At least the Jews got away from that, then the Christians scooped it back up.  One man or one billion, it’s too many.

      3. I may not share Robin’s style (!) but I am just as disgusted that the Bush administration is firing prosecutors and replacing them with patronage hires.  This is wholly inappropriate and until very recently wasn’t legal.  I notice they waited until after the midterms for this excreble behavior.

        2. I’m not concerned with style….obviously:-)

          I am concerned with the Constitution, and Co-Equal branches of government. This “end around” or “Right Flank” for you military types, is dangerous. This administration is dangerous. The Islamic Extremeists win when they destroy our Constitution and make us more like them! I’m all for holding the line.

          Forgive my style, and please pay attention to my substance.

          Humbly yours,

          Robin

      4. Allow me to change the subject from lunacy to honesty. It’s amazing how many adjectives find their way in front of honesty. Shockingly honest. Disgustingly honest. Frustratingly honest. Annoyingly honest. Traitorously honest. Sincerely honest. Extremely honest. Never honest. You can tell when he/she is lying, because their lips are moving….Never honest. Honesty is a craft built on Principals. I’ll defend my honesty and principals for as long as ColoradoPols stays on-line:-)

        Bring it on.:-)

    2. And Robin is his name-o
      R-o-b-i-n
      R-o-b-i-n
      R-0-b-i-n
      And Robin was his name-o

      “Smirking chimp?”

      Stay classy, Robin Hood. 

          1. But in his public comments he seems like a decent man. But that is not the point, the point is that Sir Robin called him a “smirking chimp” something that is akin to the “slick willie” pejorative of the 90s, and you took offense. Yet you called someone an extremely offensive insult, and maintain that you are above board becuase you dont like him.

            1. I always found it silly.  Clinton is a loser but when partisans make up names like “Slick Willy” and “smirking chimp” it’s a major turn-off.  I don’t mind “Both Ways Bob” or “Macchiato Mark.”  They are pretty harmless and even a little funny.  “Slick willy” is just lame.

  8. I posted a comment yesterday about how Elway will never run becuase in his divorce records he beat his ex wife.  My comment has now vanished and I’m wondering if any one else has had their comments removed from pols before???

    1. So, I doubt anything as unemotional as Elway’s divorce records would qualify for removal.

      Have you checked “Your Comments” link in the upper right?  Just to make sure that it didn’t get lost to a place you didn’t intend?

      1. As always, we remove comments that make unsupported allegations as often as we see them. We have always done that at Colorado Pols, regardless of the person involved.

        1. Of course, I didn’t see the exact wording, but wouldn’t it matter if it was stated as an allegation and not a fact?  There are plenty of postings up about the long running allegations that Owens has a lover and children.  All political flame outs begin as allegations….Was Nixon behind the Watergate breakin? Etc.

          1. and mountainman repeated it above. I don’t personally care but I would say that if you’re going to say such things you need to bring more to the blog than your words.

        2. for its posts them maybe this policy would make sense but I can’t even count how many times CO pols posts unsupported allegations on this site.  It’s a daily occurance.  I at least gave a source John Elway’s divorce records show he is a wife beater and will therefore never run for office.  If you don’t believe me look it up yourself, but don’t censor my comments becuase you don’t like what I have to say.

    1. I’m all aboard the Bob Train, too.  Most of the grassroots folks I’ve talked to are also jumping aboard.  Schaffer is EXACTLY the right man at the right time.

      Go Bob Go!!!

  10. Brown is leaving CU. Now some of you here know more about him than I do. Is there any chance that this is a move so that he can run for Senate again? Maybe he misses it in D.C.?

  11. DALLAS, Texas (AP) — A group of Methodist ministers from across the nation launched an online petition drive Thursday urging Southern Methodist University to stop trying to land George W. Bush’s presidential library.

      2. GW never got past step one, stop drinking.

        Actually, I don’t even know if that is a step, but I know that that the others have to do with self-examination and healing.

  13. Bill Ritter has a great solution for the problems our state faces:
    Pray Pray Pray
    Does this guy have even the slightest idea what he wants to do about health care, education or jobs? If he does he sure has not said anything in public. Great to say you want to reduce the drop out rate in ten years but how and how much?

    1. Read Governor Ritter’s Policy Book (Adobe PDF document), from the Governor’s website.

      Eight of the first ten pages enumerate specific goals and changes relating to Education, the Governor’s highest priority.  The subsequent six pages outline his health care plan.  Then jobs and the economy, in detail.  He made most of the same points at his State of the State speech.

      The word “pray” does not appear in the document, just detailed policy plans.

  14. I’ve always liked Firedoglake.com, because it’s human, intelligent and enlightened. Jane, who is the heart and soul of the site, underwent breat cancer surgery in the past couple of days. Please join me in sending our prayers, support and best wishes to one of the best human being on the blogosphere.

  15. From today’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearings concerning Habeus Corpus (an unofficial transcript):

    Specter: Now wait a minute, wait a minute. The Constitution says you can’t take it away except in the case of invasion or rebellion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus?

    Gonzales: I meant by that comment that the Constitution doesn’t say that every individual in the United States or every citizen has or is assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that. It simply says that the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended.

    From Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution:

    The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

    Alberto Gonzales should not only be impeached for his willfully obtuse interpretations of the Constitution, he should be disbarred.

    Does 9/11 constitute an “invasion”? Sorry, doesn’t pass muster. Especially not four years later with no follow-up “invasion”. The only invasion is Bush’s invasion of Iraq. A country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

    1. Was by Pancho Villa.  I think we kept H.C.!

      And we kept it in the War of 1812 despite the British and Canadians invading D.C. and burning the White House!  What a fool, that Madison!

        2. It was done legally.  Per the Constitution, by going to Congress and getting permission. 

          Anyone, correct me if I’m wrong.

          (And I will point out that there were a hell of a lot more Southern sympathizers in the north than Muslim terrrorists today!)

          1. Though Lincoln wanted to “just do it”; he eventually went to Congress and did it the Constitutional way.

            Also, the Constitution allows for the suspension in time of invasion or insurrection.  It says nothing about suspension in time of foreign war, or War On Terra.

  16. We need to hide Sir Robin!  Both Ways, as guest host for Mike Rosen, today advocated the execution of those opposed to the conduct of the war in Iraq.

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

139 readers online now

Newsletter

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