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 22, 2007 04:24 PM UTC

Monday Open Thread

  • 65 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

It’s a song about the seedy underbelly of the carnival!
The part that only the kids know about!

–Bikini Kill

Comments

65 thoughts on “Monday Open Thread

    1. But the more I read DDHGQ the more I’m convinced he’s just flaming this site with his circular arguments and patently false and inflammatory posts.

      I’m ignoring him from now on and suggest that everyone else do the same.

      You’re all free to do what you want, including you dobby. But I’m not feeding that troll any longer.

      1. I know you don’t agree with me on 90% of what I post but besides my sometimes “stirring the pot”, I just spout my non college educated opinions.
        Thanks for understanding.

        1. In regards to your “I don’t recall” stuff. Fair and balanced, and all that. Scooter Libby…now there’s a traitorous administration yes man who outed a CIA agent, Valerie Plame, who was working on counter-intelligence in the area of weapons of mass distruction. I know I’d tell her everything I know over a drink in Istanbul, or whenever and wherever she wanted to meet:-)
          Poor Scooter…He can’t remember the concerted effort to out her. I’m patiently waiting for Fritzmas.

          1. ..of why I can’t take you seriously.

            A. Not Undercover
            B. Not Outed by anyone in Administration (Armitige)
            C. No charges, other than obstruction in a non-crime

            1. Your’re wrong. She was undercover. Her husband has been srupulously honest, and has stated an opinion opposite of yours. I trust her husband.

              B. Indeed outed…the facts are clear.

              C. We’ll see…won’t we

              Do you know something I don’t?

              …..other than your grossly inadequate opinion.

              Boy

              1. Are you kidding?

                She was not undercover when  ‘outed’ by Powell’s Secretary Armitage. Do you read the news?  No charges except for Libby for obstructing an investigation into a nonexistent crime.

                Do you know something I don’t?

                Yes.  Things like history.

                How’s the Shah doing?  I heard he has a mighty Air Force.

        1. Dobby does spout some serious nonsense.  His last week’s claim that those who believe the war in Iraq can’t be won are treasoners is just pure trash.  So now if we don’t all bury our heads in the sand, blind ourselves to the reality of the situation, and pitch in for the big win for W we are not true patriots.  Why should people put up with that crap?

                1. …that I think your logic has some holes in it.  Look – Parsing’s new signature basically says that if you disagree with his point of view that you must be stupid. 

                  And you folks want to get everyone to ignore a single poster (who, to my knowledge doesn’t call names or use profanity in an aggressive fashion) like you guys are the ‘cool table’ in Jr. High School.

                  I don’t agree with everything here, but my ears are listening in case I’m missing something.  Parsing has answered real questions that I’ve asked and I’m appreciative.  I have little patience for Sir Robin because I don’t necessarily think he knows what he’s talking about, other than having a distaste for war, which I can respect.

                  I just wish you wouldn’t act like this is such a little clubhouse when someone disagrees with you. If they’re an idiot, let them show their own colors and you’ll ignore them naturally – it only makes people like me (middle of the road former Rs) less likely to see you as anything other than pure partisans, every bit as ignorant as the self righteous Republicans that turned us off from our own former party.

                  Soapbox moment over…sorry.

                  1. He is probably one of the most obnoxious human beings I’ve ever met before.  Yuck.  But I shouldn’t have called him a douche.  That was wrong.

                    I also picked up on that “club-house” quality here.  What can I say?  I doubt a lot of these people have ever actually met a real, live conservative Christian. Heck, my bet is that they haven’t met a Christian OR a conservative.  That’s why I’m saddened, though hardly surprised, at the remarkable lack of respect and tolerance. 

                  2. Jus’ something I heard and thought funny.  It will be worn out soon, and I will change it.

                    This matter of good posters (and thanks for your observations about me) will never be settled.  However, there seems to be a hard to define concensus about who are good posters and who aren’t, regardless of right or left. 

                    As a hard core leftie, I’m quite willing to hear other’s thoughts, even if it is only “This is what I think.”

                    Where I, personally draw the line, is constant shouting of “facts” which aren’t, opinions stated as fact, and a general unwillingness to listen.

                    I’m no saint, but I’ve posted opinions that aren’t in the Lefty/Dem domain, recognizing that democracy is not a “one side knows it all” political system. 

                  3. LOL, very funny!  You are earning your name Laughing Boy!

                    I agree.  Hell, there’s even room for ridiculously obvious shills at the table.  It takes all kinds to keep a blog interesting.  If you don’t have someone to rail against now and again, what are you left with?  Civilized discourse?  It’s a blog not a cottilian ladies!  And the recent preoccupation with the term “douchebag” seems a little touchy to me.

                    OK, enough from the peanut gallery, I’m missing POTUS and the entertaining part.  When and which Dems stand and clap and for what parts, and Hillary close-ups when he talks about tax breaks for health care.  Whoo hoo!

                    1. It isn’t his politics, the disrespect he shows his adversaries, or the name-calling… it’s that he does all that while claiming the moral high ground in the debate. He’ll call HRC “hildebeast” and then get all pissy when someone dares speak of Bush or Spongedob without reverence. He’ll express his views in a rational tone and then answer any responses by saying that he’s right because he’s right. In other words he pretends to be someone interested in discussion when he is in fact just a blowhard who doesn’t want to listen. At best he wants to bait.

                      We can deal with blowhards who are honest about it (hi Ruthie!); this one is not.

          1. There’s a charming, or at least tolerable, sense of integrity about Gecko.  He may not “get it” and many a time he’s raised my dander, but at the end of the day, over a beer, he is Gecko.  And like most POLster’s he’s willing to give and take. (Sometimes like pulling teeth, but that’s another story!)

            “Doc”, on the other hand, very seldom or never admits to seeing a different viewpoint. His incessant cheeerleading and predictions w/o substance have worn me out.

            There’s also the matter of this small government conservative working for the government. That’s non-integrity. People drawn to very conservative, doctrinaire conservatism must keep up their ideologue-shields, because once there is a crack, it all comes down. 

            Without even seeing the signature, I can pick out his posts in the first one or two sentences.  I’ve come to think of his MO as Stepford.

            It’s nothing personal, “Doc”, I’d probably enjoy having a beer or two with you.  It’s a style that doesn’t fit what our community has built.

            1. Parsy,

              I take great exception to your impuning of my integrity because of where I work.  I am proud to work for the government–it is an honest living to provide for my family.  That is all that matters–it is all that should matter. 

              Everything in our daily lives has become way too politicized.  It shouldn’t determine where you work.  At my office there are Democrats and Republicans and we all work hard for our families.  Politics mercifully stops at the clcok.  As it should be.

              Realize Parsy, that we are two anonymous, virtual voices.  The personalization of things is disgraceful.  You know nothing about me and yet you feel you have the liberty to question my integrity–which I take a lot of pride in.  That is wrong.

              You can play infantile “let’s ignore the fundie” games if you like.  But please don’t waste your time.  Don’t waste your’s.  Let’s grow up, man up, and talk some politics, shall we?

      2. I’m not wild on Gecko’s occasional threats of bodily harm but he does post a rational consistent argument from the conservative point of view. I’ld hate to lose him.

        And DDHGQ does seem to be totally out to lunch.

        So I’ll go along with that – Gecko yes, DDHGQ who?

      3. I disagree with about everything that comes out of the doctor’s mouth.  But, I think we should continue to engage him.  I find his viewpoints pretty fascinating.  He represents a fairly large constituency in Colorado and the U.S.  In my opinion, to ignore him and not dissect his rants – would be a mistake.  Kind of along the lines of “keep your friends close but your enemies closer”.

        1. Maybe it is because i have engaged in debates so many times that utilize the same talking points, presents no substantiated evidence, and refuses to adress contrary opinions that I agree with Aristotle. I will debate substance of policy and candidates, but this ad nauseum rpeition is tired to me, and I just wont do it.

      4. I don’t think anyone should be censored.  Gecko disagrees (which is great), but he has intelligence.

        Like Dobson and FOTF, DDHGLQ is way-way-way out in right field and can’t seem to gather enough neurons to make a coherent argument.  Also like FOTF, we’re giving him credibility by even listening and bothering to respond to his insanely wild ideas.

        We’ll never know, but it wouldn’t suprise me if DDHGLQ was a paid FOTF employee tasked with just this sort of thing.

  1. and their proposed bills. The Gazette did one down here that skimmed the surface but it would be interesting to see a “what they promised” versus a “what they are doing”. Or should we just start here with our favorites and hated ones.

    1. So how do you feel about Marsha Looper’s bill?  I received my “toll road warrior” email update that pretty much chastised her proposed legislation, even though she was the candidate of the anti-super slab folks and made the toll road the cornerstone of her campaign…

      …would like your thoughts here.

        1. According to the email:

          “HB-1068 says that incorporation papers filed by toll roads MUST NOT say where the corridor for the road is. Furthermore the companies could not send notices to landowners nor county clerks until their road is added to the statewide transportation plan. This is the master plan of transportation projects maintained by CDOT and the state transportation commissioners. A project is not added to the state transportation plan until it goes through a long evaluation process and once it has been added to the plan it is an approved project waiting to happen. That is when landowners would be notified under HB-1068. In football terms it’s like not bringing the defense out of the locker room until your opponent is on the one yard line. It’s not a good idea.”

          1. here.

            First clause looks bad because it deletes the 3 mile rule but it does accomplish two things: one, since no corridor can be stated, I would interpret this to mean the statewide transportation plan can move it where it wants – maybe not such a bad idea; and two, means that the three mile corridor is trumped by 7-45-104 which states that the corridor can’t be greater than the length and width approved by all affected metropolitan
            planning organizations, regional planning commissions, and the transportation commission pursuant to sections 7-45-105 and 7-45-106.
            This means that a city can squeeze the corridor – the toll company has to fight through each of these – yikes.

            The prohibition on “diversion” to the toll road is a good one, maybe. The question is whether failing to build new roads (like is in the C-470 contracts as I understand) would be diversion? I think this could be clarified some.

            Quarterly status reports are a joke – there were status reports for the “Big Dig” in Boston – what good did that do? However, the change does keep the company from spending $500,000 and then sitting on the eminent domain property. That was just a cheap option on the property – that is a good change. The question becomes what does happen to the porperty if they don’t complete. I would love a clause added to the bonding that states the bond must cover reclammation costs for all property seized through eminent domain in the event of abandonment of the project.

            The 80% rule to get emminent domain could be great or could be a complete red herring. If a big ranch has 80% of the land, then this just screws the little guys if the big guy wants to sell. I think could hurt as much as helps. Or, better, make it 80% of the landowners holding property along the length of the proposed road – that keeps one big landowner from rolling the group.

            The interesting piece is that previously the toll road had to get the necessary approvals before starting to acquire rights of way – the local authorities could only authorize environmental and pre-construction activities. Now, they can preauthorize getting rights of way. My problem with this is that sometimes projects that get a lot of money spent get a life of their own. I would like to see the argument for this change – I’m not sure that I see the point unless it is to trap the toll road into spending money before approvals to show they have it. The bad part is that once they start acquiring rights of way it will become very hard to get agreement on changing the route.

            The last point is that the constraint that the toll road cannot be put into the statewide plan until it has been put in the local and regional plans is good – keeps the state from pushing the project out in front of the locals.

            Like all bills, it’s easy to throw stones without seeing the reasons and trade offs for the language. I would say there are some flaws but, in general, the intent seems to be to create greater accountability and raise the approval bar. I pointed out the places where I think the laxity could bite, take a shot at proposing changes.

            1. to go out and acquire right of way but it keeps the state DOT from doing anything until all the lower level governments act – I think that may make it harder. As I said, I think this may be a flawed attempt at her stated campaign position against the slab but I am not sure it is as artfully worded as it could be – but working without a staff and no lobbyist help makes that a lot harder than all of us in the peanut gallery are probably willing to give credit to.

              1. hides the acquisition process. In a lot of ways it does – however, the route can’t be approved by the state until all the locals go along. I am not sure anyone would be willing to sink all that money into rights of way if they don’t have approval in the state transport plan to build it. This,as I said, has the marks of a flawed attempt to do something but the noises I am hearing is that many other people have a much darker take on this.

    2. I have two examples of bills from freshman legislators that I’d like to see killed (the bills that is!  NOT the legislators themselves!).  First from Democratic Rep. Cherylin Peniston from Westminster who’s HB 1005 requires school district that implement a reduction in teacher salaries during the budget year to also reduce administrator salaries by the same percentage because “fairness outweighs local control.”  First of all, I find it insulting to school board members, who are also elected officials, to suggest that the Rep. Peniston feels that she cares more for fairness than the people who are closer to the problem and therefore must write a new law to make sure that school boards are fair.  And more importantly, I could come up with several examples off the top of my head where this would not constitute “fairness”. 

      A second bill that I’d like to see killed is from Republican Bob Gardner of Colorado Springs who’s HB 1075 would allow the State Charter Institute to levy taxes for capital equipment for their charter schools and be allowed tax exempt loans.  I could go on for some length as to the reasons I think this is a bad idea, but I’d like to point out the hilarity of an El Paso County Republican putting forth his first bill to include a new taxing authority and higher taxes.

      1. What is Bob thinking? 

        Agree with you wholeheartedly on HB 1005. Taking away local control is almost always a bad idea.  This kind of State overreach really irritates me. 

          1. But it’s not just micromanaging, it’s that old “one solution fits every problem” mentality that so frustrates me.  What if a school board, needing to make budget cuts, did a study and discovered that their teachers were making 20% above the area averages but their administrators were making 10% below the area averages.  Would it be fair to make equal cuts across the entire pay scale? 

            What if a principal had been hired to run a 400 student school and the school had grown to 800 students and twice the staff, but that principal had never had their pay adjusted for that increase in responsibility.  I don’t think it would be fair to cut his or her salary simply because there was a cut in teacher salary.

            I would hate to be facing the decision to cut teacher pay as a school board member, and would be tying myself in knots to make sure that if it had to be done, that it was done in the most fair way possible.  I wouldn’t need Denver telling me that they had carved the definition of “fair” in concrete.

        1. “What is Bob thinking?”  You ask.  I believe that he is very involved in the governance of Cheyenne Mountain Charter Academy, although I don’t think he currently sits on the Board of Directors. I believe that he also provides legal council of some sort to charter schools.  He follows in the footsteps of Keith King, former representative from HD21 who now serves on the Charter School Institute of Colorado.  I guess taxes are evil unless they happen to benefit your own pet project.

          Unfortunately, HB 1005 already passed in House Ed before I started paying attention, so I’m going to write a few letters to those serving in Senate Ed.  I’d like to believe that Sue Windells would see the problem with this bill, but I would have thought that of most of the members of House Ed too.

  2. on the weekend thread.

    http://coloradopols….

    I’ve posted what I’m about to write before, but think it bears repeating.

    One of the strangest aspects of the definition of modern conservatism, to my mind, is the plank of “strong defense.” It’s strange to me because the reality of strong defense seems at odds with the reality of our bloated military budget, particularly in regards to military contracts. (The budget for paying our soldiers, sailors and airmen and taking care of their needs certainly is not bloated.) It seems that our proud GOP representatives and senators are all too glad to throw money at any new, untested and uncertain weapon system devised by Lockheed Martin and other big defense contractors. Their fiscal conservatism goes right out the window and is justified with a cry of “strong defense!!” The implication, of course, being that anyone questioning it is at best soft and at worst a traitor.

    It’s important at this juncture to state that these are my impressions, not the hard facts of the matter.

    I’m no wonk. I don’t read the budget, I don’t pay much attention to budget hearings. So my challenge here is to those of you more familiar with these nuts and bolts aspects of the military. Can someone please show (or tell me where to find) and broad breakdown of the military budget? I’m specifically interested in A) how much of the entire Federal budget goes to Defense Department spending (a dollar figure is good, but a percentage is better); B) how much of the Defense budget goes to major defense contractors R&D vs. how much goes to supporting our troops (pay, supplying material); C) whether the DoD still pays hundreds of dollars for toilet seats and minor hardware like they did in the 80s; and D) anything else that sheds light on the reality of military spending.

    I believe we can save the taxpayers billions of dollars by cutting defense spending without weakening our military one bit. What do you think?

    1. I was just reading yesterday that even the Pentagon often just inserts budgeted amount for expenditures because they don’t know what was spent! 

      I’ve read of at least two sources that puts the entire military budget, including things like the VA, interest on loans to pay for military actions and programs, retirement costs, etc. at 55-65% of our non-“entitlement” budget.  And “thy” say we can’t afford universal health care or higher education!

      Although a Quaker, I’m not so naive as to think we could not have a military.  It would be a wonderful day if we could get to that point, but 2008 is not it.  My concerns are the amount of money the military eats, especially in comparison to the rest of the world, and our militarized culture. 

      No one dares to question or criticize the military.  Well, I do.  I think our military commanders really fucked up Iraq, starting before it started.  “Excuse me President Bush, but with all due respect, this is a fucked up idea.”  But no, now they could use all the toys in the arsenal, get promotions, and feel like the big dick. 

      They even have the gall to blame the grunts for their failures!  When D-Day started, Ike had a statement in his pocket to read in case the invasion failed.  He took full responsibility.  Today they blame Lindy England.

      1. military budget are classified and, as such, can not be examined by the public. The NSA budget – for one – contains a number of “black” items as far as I know. So, your question, unfortunately, is one that requires an amazing amount of detective work. My suggestion is google “US military budget analysis” and see what you get.

      2. I haven’t read or heard of a single general advocating that we invade Iraq.  Could they have made a stink?  Yes, but that’s not their job.  Democracy depends on civilian control of the military. Since the military has all the big guns, that depends in turn on an officer corps that accepts that the adminstration calls the shots, even when the shot-callers are a bunch of fricken idiots.  Should more generals have had the courage to speak freely in Congressional hearings notwithstanding administration retaliation against those who did?  Yes, but for the most part they weren’t asked the hard questions before the war.  It’s Congress’ job to oversee administration policy, not the generals.  Don’t blame the generals because Congress didn’t do its job.

    2. http://www.cdi.org/P

      or Taxpayers for Common Sense:

      http://www.taxpayer….

      Both of them are independent think tanks that have done some excellent analysis of defense spending. 

      btw, one of the biggest advocates of a balanced budget being the key to national security was Dwight Eisenhower. 

      I’m a flaming liberal but I’m not against military spending – I’m against *wasteful* military spending.  I’m all for supporting the troops, but that shouldn’t be used as an excuse to buy every expensive, hare-brained weapons system that comes down the pike.

      Hope this is helpful.

    3. of two expensive programs that were cancelled by Republican admins.  The first was the A-12 Avenger II Navy stealth fighter.  It was cancelled in 1991 by then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney because of cost over runs and continued delays by the primary contractor.  President Bush at the time was also cutting back on the military because of the fall of the Soviet Union.  I had several friends who worked at Lockheed at the time who were laid off because of those cuts.

      The second was the Crusader mobile artillery system.  It was cancelled by Donald Rumsfeldt because it was an expensive Cold War designed system that had no use against forseeable threats.

      You will find as many “anti-war” Democrats who will balk at military cuts in their district as “war mongering” Republicans that will fight just as hard to keep those jobs in theirs.

      1. You will find as many “anti-war” Democrats who will balk at military cuts in their district as “war mongering” Republicans that will fight just as hard to keep those jobs in theirs.

        That’s certainly true (although I have to question whether those Dems ever identify as “anti-war”). But that’s the politics of pork at work.

    1. Ha!  Read the article.  I noticed that Haggard’s proof that evangelicals had the “best” sex lives was followed by some statement that when he asked the evangelical fellow seated beside him how often he had sex with his wife the answer was “every day”.  I am led to understand that evangelical women are taught to submit to the will of their husbands…hmmm…I wonder if a poll conducted of women would come up with the same definition of “best” and the same results?

        1. Is it your MO to pretty much slander everyone else’s faith?  It’s a touching quality for a gay guy who has so much trouble getting respect for his group.

  3. Half of this thread was dedicated to ME!  Whether or not you agree with me I think the fact that half a thread was devoted to some anonymous guy is points to something crazy Okie said: “I think we should still engage him because he represents a large part of America.”

    Indeed. 

    Since my–apparently grand–entrance on this site I have thrown out some new ideas for many of you.  I am unflinchingly conservative.  I make no apologies for that.  I am, I’m proud to say, able to articulate the conservative position on issues with intelligence.  At the same time I am able to get a rise out of the left-leaning contingent precisely because you know that I actually believe what I say.

    Another problem is that you lefties live in an ideological bubble.  You read the Daily Kos, you live in liberal communities (mostly), you go onto Colorado Pols and read the Denver Post.  I’m therefore not surprised that people find my ideas so incindiary–YOU GUYS NEVER HEAR THIS STUFF.  I work in Boulder, went to CU, and spend time amongst lots of lefties.  I know how you guys think. 

    The choice is clearly your’s if you want to “engage” me or not.  Frankly, I don’t pin my personal or political fulfillment on a bunch of wonks (of which I am one) on an obscure liberal political site.  I’m here to talk Colorado politics.  You know where I stand and you know that I won’t concede things.  That’s because I believe what I say (what a concept, huh?).

    I solicit the same reactions from the Left as President Bush or Reagan does.  It’s nothing new.  You hate the people I love and I’m not surprised by it.  I have tremendously enjoyed sharing my insights into Colorado politics–a sport which I clearly love–and hope to continue to do so as we ramp up for an important election in this fine state.

    Cheers,
    The Doc

  4. There is a concerted and focused effort by the Cheney/Bush/and “devilish” Rice-a-roni trio to find reason to invade Iran.

    How many wars will it take till they learn that too many people have died? (paraphrasing Dylan)

    Let’s not let it happen. And if it does, I pray that the response will shake the very foundations of the government that is supposed to be representative of the people, not the oil interests.

  5. The new Capitol Hill newspaper, The Politico, launches tomorrow. In its lead story – an exclusive interview with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) – the senator lashes out against Vice President Dick Cheney. Roger Simon writes:

    With his presidential hopes tied to an administration whose Iraq policy he supports but cannot control, John McCain for the first time blamed Vice President Cheney for what McCain calls the “witch’s brew” of a “terribly mishandled” war in which U.S. forces are on the verge of defeat.

    Although McCain had once lavished praise on the vice president, he said in an interview in his Senate office: “The president listened too much to the Vice President … Of course, the president bears the ultimate responsibility, but he was very badly served by both the Vice President and, most of all, the Secretary of Defense.”

    At a July 15, 2004 appearance in Michigan, McCain called Cheney “one of the most capable, experienced, intelligent and steady vice presidents this country has ever had.”

    Also in the interview, McCain continued his back-pedaling from the escalation strategy that he first proposed. After offering a full-throated endorsement of the Bush plan just days ago, McCain opened the door to the redeployment of U.S. forces back to the borders of Iraq should the president’s plan fail. He added, “I don’t know if this is enough troops or not. I can’t guarantee success by doing this.”

    Exceedingly political…and not to be trusted. We need integrity in our leadership!

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

104 readers online now

Newsletter

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