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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
February 13, 2007 04:28 PM UTC

Tuesday Open Thread

  • 111 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“Macaca was just a variation of that,” Dick Wadhams said.

Comments

111 thoughts on “Tuesday Open Thread

  1. one of our aspiring presidential candidates REFUSING to fire admitted bigots from his campaign staff would have made a ColPols headlines by now.
    Oh, wait, we surely don’t want to make the wonder boy look bad here do we? Let’s all try to down play this. Yeah, that’s the ticket. Look the other way. Talk about something more important, like……….
    how about a dead actress, or Jesus, the super bowl, shit like that.
    Or how bad Tancredo is, or how evil Bush is.

    What a joke.

    1. Why slam on Edwards when you have Dick Wadhams right here in Colorado?  Check out the tag line of this thread. Granted, George Allen’s campaign faux pas is really old news, but it involved DICK WADHAMS!  There’s a new Pub to obsess about, don’t try to divert their attention, it won’t work.  Wadhams is the new Beauprez!

      1. don’t know who this Wadhams character is.
        But I do know that Edwards has brought much praise from liberals on this site, and he is trying to obtain the highest office in the land.
        I would think that his standing behind admitted bigots is more importat to our state than Anna Smith.

        1. “Bill Donohue and his calvacade of right wing shills don’t respect that a mere woman like me could be hired for my skills, and pretended that John Edwards had to be held accountable for some of my personal, non-mainstream views on religious influence on politics.”

          So Gecko, does Edwards need to held accountable for the actions of every person he comes into contact with? If that’s the case, then Bush has far more crimes on his hands than we can count.

          1. acknowledge when he has bigots working for him in a PRESIDENTIAL race………And eliminate them.

            I have yet to see a single “give the world away” liberal here call him down for it.
            Not one.
            If this is just peachy for him now, what if he actually made it in office?
            You all call down conservatives all the time but refuse to acknowledge one on your own fucked up team, right smack in the middle of a national race.
            Like I said, it figures.

            1. I still don’t know what these people did to infuriate you. What did they do?

              And if you’re going to pull the “give the world away liberals” card, why are you not going after Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly, Boyels, et al for being bigots and supporting Bush and the rest of the cabal.

              1. He’s no Limbaugh or Hannity.  The man is a Buchananite bigot and nobody seriously takes the man seriously. 

                Just a clarification, of course.

      1. And I stand by my assumption that because it is a negative towards a liberal, it will be ignored here.

        C’mon. This is all over the internet, on the radio, etc.
        Almost old news by now.

        If Edwards doesn’t fire those two staffers, he will sink like a rock, and the Hildabeast or Ossama Bama will take the liberal lead in their lost cause for the Presidency.

        1. Which radio stations ares you listening to? Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly, Boyles, et al don’t count since they are just tools pushing misinformation.

          And if it’s old news why are you still pusing it?

            1. HAHAHA……
              I don’t think so. I am one of the biggest gentlemen you could ever meet.
              I think the world of women, with the exception of the man hating Neo Femminists, I go out of my way to open doors for them, hold elevators for them,……..old fashioned gentlemen acts.
              Believe it or not, it is true.
              Lauren Bacall would enjoy my company very much.

              But I am a gun nut, like the crazie okie said, not to excess though.

              Now when I got married back in 1981, my best buddy wanted to give me a 21 gun salute………….with his Thompson Sub-Machine Gun!
              Now that is a gun nut.

              1. I think your original objection was that Pols was not interested in a negative story about Edwards, but seem to be very interested in stories that put R’s in a bad light, right?

                I feel your pain (heavy sigh), but this is the nature of the blogosphere.  It is dominated by the other team.  Although we are still badly outnumbered and I doubt if anyone at Pols is a Republican, this is still one of the few places that mixes it up.  (And you have to admit, most of the Libs in here are pretty nice.)

                My question though, who is paying bloggers?  I blog every day for free.  Hey, Mr. Wadhams, where can I send my resume?  I’m available for duty.  Hello? 

                1. I think its like the Daily Show. The biggest cry on the right is that the media isnt fair, that they only want to paint the right in a bad light. Up until recently, Republicans were in power. And as the party in power, they make the decisions which will be derided and examined ad nauseum. Now that the dems are in power you will see a shift in that lampooning to the left. Case in point.

                  Now what does this story have to do with Colorado? Something the president does has an effect in colorado, whether it is in Iraq (Fort Carson), speech screw-ups (those are just funny), or any other thing Pols choose to post. But this does not affect colorado.

                  More to the point, this is not the place to have a fight, because there are more than enough bloggers on the right that make just as inflammatory comments who have standing with players like Fox News. Gecko’s pissed about a couple of no-names who will return to obscurity just as fast they gained the spotlight. Why isnt he pissed about Michelle Malkin a regular commentator on Fox as well as a blogger? Or how about those on McCain’s campaign? Oh, thats right, he agrees with them.

                  Pols is about as center as you will find, in my experience. If you have a beef start your own diary, as they and many others have said.

                  Im sorry Lauren, but you are not extreme enough to get paid for your posts. Plus, you difuse situations rather than create them. Nope, you are a good person, and that is an immediate disqualifier for a paid blogging position.

                  1. You mean only meanies get paid?  Give me some time. I can throw bombs, I know I can!

                    But seriously, why would either party pay flame throwers?  What is the value in that?  Does name calling and rancor bring in more votes?

                    And you are right that Pols is more to the center than the others (center lllleft) but the others are pretty damn partisan and bill themselves as such. I don’t think anyone wanders into “to the right” or “young angry liberal” unaware of the site’s leanings.

                    1. Its like attack ads. Do people like them? No. Are they effective? You bet. My guess is that they employ them for three reasons: 1) Its a new technology, and the most established ones are the more partisan sites. 2) People visit them by choice, and as such, it is a hell of lot cheaper to pay a few bloggers than it is a 30 sec ad spot. 3) It seems advanced, and politicians want to look distinguished, but seem savvy.

                      Now, to your question as to why they employ flame-throwers. 1) People who come onto the scene with brash language, and over-the-top accusations will be attacked, but often get a lot of defenders. And the lurkers on the site will often buy what they are selling, truth be damned. 2) People visit the site by choice, and often cherry pick their facts, and the nicknames. Start throwing around names that rhyme or are an alliteration, and you’ve created an anti-candidate campaign that has a nice soundbite.

                       

                    2. but it seems like to me that “shills” are detected pretty quick and not given much credence.  I can’t speak for lurkers though.  Who knows what effect it has on them?

                  2. You missed my first and main point.
                    I was wondering why there is no stink being brought up by anyone on this blog, and especially by ColPols or *laugh* Media Matters.
                    I was immediately told by ColPols that they RARELY ever discuss national politics here. (Of course they just got done posting another thread today about the Presidential race. Something they just told me they RARELY ever do)
                    That is the sign of a HYPOCRIT.
                    You say they are center……..I laugh. That is only because you lean pretty far left yourself, therefore most anything they say, you agree with. Hence, to you they are center.
                    I lean right. Pretty far right.
                    You know my values…….stand up for yourself, ask for nothing and expect nothing, limited government, lower taxes, lower social programs, etc.
                    I’m getting off track again.
                    When ColPols either admits they are far left and not CENTER, I will thank them and acknowledge that they are indeed an upright truthfull blog.
                    Until then, we ALL know they are just another lefty liberal socialist leaning site.
                    PERIOD.

                    1. Not literarily accurate I suppose, but apt….Don Quixote… someone who refuses to face facts even when he is hit over the head with them. Reminds me of the stubborn mule analogy oft quoted here.

                    2. I think no one brought it up, because either no one cares or no one knew about it. I fall under the former category. I dont care, because, as I said before, they are no-names, and this is there opinion. If their comments stick with Edwards, which I doubt they will, then it becomes a problem for him. As far as pols is concerned I would want there to be a piece about it if, say, someone like McCain’s decietful and disgusting blogger was getting attention by pols. But since they arent, and since they do not work for Pat Waak or Wadhams or a state or local campaign I dont care.

                      The President is related to the state, and since pols is an outlet where someone people get information, and since that thread was about the growing influence of blog sites, I dont see the big deal.

                      I bet you think that NPR is far left. I love NPR, because they have the most in depth coverage on the radio. They dont play favorites, and the questions arent softballs. CoPols, to me, is somewhat similar. They provide information. They offer their opinion on political outcomes, but it isnt unrealistic or outrageous. Their has been a lot of post on Amend 41, a dem gaffe; there were posts on 1072, surprising ot say the least; I could go on. If you think they are so left, why do you still visit? My guess, is that outside of your favorite watering hole, there arent too many places for you to discuss politics.

        2. One of them quite yesterday.  I suppose that was mentioned on the stations you listen to.

          I thought I was being very fair in my post yesterday, saying I/we need to find out what this is all about. 

          As far as I can see the very ugly comments this woman made were not done while under Edward’s hire or with his approval. 

          Nor has this anything to do with MM.  What are they supposed to do?  Refute someone’s ugly blogging? 

          If Edwards had approved the message or written it himself, you’ve got an issue.  But he did neither, so this is a non-issue…..except in the RR noise machine. 

      1. Who hired the same consultants, pollsters and media firms that Bush used in 2000 to attack McCain during the primary. From what I remember they spread rumors that McCain had father an illigetimate child with a african-american mother.

        Now why would you hire slime like that? I admired McCain, especially for his service to this country, but he’s stricken with greed for power and has sold out to many times to the group neo-cons in the White House.

        1. when he sees his first ad produced by them about how he lost his mind while he was a POW and how he illigetimately fathered “half-rican american” (to borrow a Rush Limbaugh word) children.

          Then he’ll fire them….

    2. Edwards should have dumped these people on the spot. Campaigns are constantly judged by their knuckleheaded staffers. How many times have people been up in arms on this site about staffers messing with yard signs? Staffers are expendable, reputation is not. 

      1. I read some of the comments too, and they are completely self righteous and inflammatory.  He should have kicked them to the curb a long time ago, but I don’t think Edwards is getting any traction anyway.

      2. Staffers are good news fodder, but do they make the difference between winning and losing? I dont think so. Sure we like to bitch about them, but if that is the determinant, rather than substantive policy, that is a real shame.

        This is the dilemma that campaigns face when they employ bloggers. Sarcasm, over-the-top characterizations, and foul language are par for the course. There is a gigantic chasm between the feigned civility of political campaigns, and the brash, smash-mouth world of blogging.

          1. I am not making excuses, and in the interest of full disclosure I am an Edwards fan and have said so many times, but I expect that this is something that we will see many times over.

            I guarantee that there is not a single serious blogger who has at one point or another not pissed of a large group of people, and can equally be described as inflammatory. Whether they get, or have gotten the third degree remains to be seen. Show me a blogger who has never pissed someone off, and I will show you a blogger who has never taken a stance.

            The problem is this, lets say that you, FDN, have been hired by a campaign as a blogger. Yet, at one point or another you made some disparaging remarks about (insert politically influential group here), and you made these remarks before you were hired by the campaign. Should the campaign be responsible for your remarks? Or, lets say that you are a big fan of (something completely unrelated to politics), and like to blog about it. Lets also say that you made disparaging remarks about people who feel differently about this issue or group, should the campaign be held responsible for these comments (made during the campaign)?

            I think the biggest problem is that democrats try and hold themselves to a higher standard than republicans. Gecko is pissed that some no-name bloggers are making inflammatory statements about a religion that he is not a member (to my knowledge). Why isnt he up in arms about someone like Michelle Malkin a woman given credibility by the republicans who makes just as inflammatory, if not more so, statements? Or ann coulter who advocates murder and terrorism against groups (i.e., Democrats) and people (i.e., supreme court justices) she doesnt like? I think its because dems are supposed to be above that crap. Or because he agrees and doesnt their statements as disgusting.

          2. When you go into an interview, you want to put your best face forward. I bet that these women brought in writing samples that were along the lines of pure policy advocation and nothing along the lines anti-catholic statements. Maybe they have multiple blogging names like ruthie. Fact of the matter is an employer can never truly know the personality of a person that represents them.

            1. I understand what you are saying Toodles, and I think that the beauty of blogging is being able to say what you really feel while remaining anonymous, so I guess I can give the (ex) staffers a break. I am curious about one thing though, and bear with me because I am not up on this story.  How did they even attribute those statements on a blog to those Edwards staffers anyway if they are using “multiple blogging names like ruthie?” Were they foolish enough to use their own names ? ( sorry Dan Willis)
              Did they just admit it?

              Ostensibly people only know me as FDN, so there is no way to trace the blogger’s handle back to the actual person, unless (donning tin foil hat now) somebody tracks IP’s or whatnot.

              1. I am in the dark on that too.

                A couple of points though. 1) I am not saying that they should be forgiven necessarily. I am saying that when politics and politicians start using bloggers this sort of thing will come up a lot.

                2) Unrelated to the first, but might help explain your and my question. I post regularly on a forum that has many subsections. The main one is just sort of a general any topic kind of forum that is user driven. On multiple occasions I have watched internet detectives gain all sorts of assumed secret information on bloggers, myspacers, whatever. I am talking names, addresses, phone numbers. Its fascinating to watch, and a little scary. So you may just be FDN to me, but to them you are Joe Smith at 123 Any Street who can be reached at 303-555-FIDEL.

      3. I’m not wild about the idea of one dumb post getting you fired. Of course, I’m one of the few here who has his real contact info in his link.

        But the comments were definitely well into the grey area. They definitely hate the Catholic Church. And don’t have anything to show that that hate does not spill over onto the religious.

        But, it was just the church that was their target. And it was just a couple of posts. Can any of us withstand that level of scrutiny?

        So – I don’t know…

        1. took it out of the grey area for me.  Religious or not, that was way out of the bounds of good taste and respect for other people’s beliefs.  That blogger should have been canned.

          1. Before or after her hiring?

            Anything to do with politics?

            Not that I’m trying to defend her beyond her first amendment rights, but those questions would be pertinent to the Edwards connection. 

            “Of all the bloggers in all of the blogoshpere of the world, I find you.”  Parphrasing Bogart, sorta……

            1. I assume she was hired when she wrote it, but only because it shouldn’t be an issue if she is just a random blogger.  Free speech is one thing, if a blogger in here wrote it, most of us would shame them into leaving or changing their blog name. If a candidate is paying someone to blog on their own website, that goes to professionalism, good taste, etc. etc.

    1. Is BIll O’s office at the top? Or has he been demoted since making those comments of children enjoying repeated molestation?

      I guess Limbaugh and the Dido heads are sitting pretty high, or have they been escorted out of the building for his repeated racial assertions?

  2. All the tax lovin libs here downplay this.
    Question, if staffers from some candidate blasted homosexuals, immigrants, lesbians, abortion rights, etc, would you ignore that too?
    I bet not.
    You would be all over their asses. Call the ACLU would be the battle cry.
    Hypocrites, all of ya.

    1. between strenuous criticism of the policies of the Catholic Church, and criticism of Catholic people themselves, then you have completely missed the boat on Edwards’ blogger “issue.”

      One of the two just resigned, BTW.  She was tired of getting death threats from pro-life Catholics.

        1. Hey, your GOP is hiring DICK WADHAMS…what does that say about all Republicans in Colorado not dumping this racists SOB?

          Let’s see, you also have Tancredo, Lamborn, Musgrave, Welker, Schulthies, and so many other elected GrOPers who race bait.

        1. Come on, Gecko.  Doesn’t everyone here have pubic hair?  How childish.  That’s they only term I can think of.  I usually cut you a lot of slack, but this time I can’t.

  3. Okay.  Maybe not.  But he is terribly wrong on what makes a great city, well, great.  Here’s a splendid article from Joel Kotkin, author of The City, in today’s Wall Street Journal (I don’t think you need to be a subscriber)…

    http://online.wsj.co

    Notice how he lumps Denver in, justifiably, with the cities like Charlotte, Dallas, and Riverside, which are all posting up large growth numbers while the Pelosivilles of America are largely stagnant.  There is a formiddable tug-of-war going on between Hickenlooper and other metro cities to decide just what Denver should be.  We could certainly become an urbane nesting place for the country’s hipsters. Or we could be what we’ve always aimed for: a good, affordable place to raise kids–good schools, lots of jobs, and lots of churches.  This is irrespective of politics.  Whether it’s Pat Schroeder and Dick Lamm or Bill Owens and Wayne Allard running the show in Colorado, metro Denver and surrounding areas has remained largely the same.  To follow Florida’s elitist model of doing things, Denver could ensure that it will never be a world class town in the sense that we attract bright minds from the world over. 
    ———————————————————–

    In other news, the next president of the United States, Mitt Romney, announced his candidacy today!!!

    1. Denver has been unable to annex land for several decades.  If the population is growing, it is either more people per household, or more vertical condos.

      “Pelosivilles?”  SF is stagnant?  Did you put Kool-Aid in your coffee this AM?  SF is the most admired city in America, the #1 tourist destinaiton for a city.  It costs a fortune to live there.  Why?  “Everyone” wants to live there. 

      1. By whom? Homosexuals, hippies, yuppies, and liberals maybe.
        Not the rest of us.
        The ONLY thing California in general has going for it is its weather.
        That is why so many of them haved moved here and are now trying to fuck up this state.

        1. just because YOU do or don’t like something, doesn’t mean that certain facts are wrong.

          San Francisco IS a popular travel destination, and the fact that so many people – even straights – want to live there supports my contention.

          San Francisco is vibrant, intellectual, entrepreneurial, tolerant, scenic, has “can do” attitude, international, creative, a literary and poetry capital, and without a doubt, the center of culinary expertise in America.

          If those aren’t your values, so be it.  But please don’t put down one of America’s most incredible cities because you like (gurg) Colorado Springs better. Right, now there’s a hub of the universe.

          BTW, in my four days there in December, I found it no more queer than Denver. 

          Have you ever spent time in California?  It has generally every thing I attributed to SF, plus a range of geographies unmatched anywhere: High and low deserts, the Sierras (and Mt. Whitney is higher than any CO mountain, sad to say) the beaches and oceans, the Central Valley breadbasket, the rolling hills of Napa, the forests farther north. Don’t knock it until you’ve tried it.

          1. I have tried it, and Sanhosey and Sunnyveil.  I’ll pass.  Frisco is really not all that happinin (actually kind of boring with lots of restaurants).  South you might as well live in your car.  You’ll spend most of your day in it, and might be able to afford to eat if you also slept in it.

            If you have lots of money… well, I believe Bill Joy moved to Aspen.

            1. And as you say, the cost of living is astronomical. I was at the house of John Cassady, son of Neal.  He was laughing about how his unpretentious, humble older tract home in San Jose cost a half a million.

              My comments were all hooked to Gecko’s dismissal of SF and CA as having no reason to live there.

        2. Most Americans only ‘admire’ San Francisco because it’s a lovely place and a charmer to visit.  But nobody seriously thinks it would be a nice place to live.  If most Americans believe homosexuality to be wrong and most voted for Bush, I highly doubt they’d find San Francisco all that fetching.

          1. I’d LOVE to live in SF, and I’m hetero as any manly man. (Ha ha ha.)

            “But nobody seriously thinks it would be a nice place to live.”  Do you see anything wrong with that statement?  What about the 740,000 people who DO live there? They seem to have missed your opinion. 

            My ex-son-in-law’s family is as conservative as you, Dobby.  But they have lived in Boulder for decades.  I might point out, living off of the tax payer funded academic and institutional employees there. 

      2. Only the rich can afford San Fran, and there are very few families with children in the city limits.  The high housing costs have caused an exodous of the middle class to the exurbs.

      3. Plus, the residential development of Stapleton, Lowry, and the Central Platte Valley have contributed to Denver’s population increase (I wouldn’t call it a boom, though.) 

        I can’t believe someone compared Denver to Dallas!  ewww!

        1. Yeah, I think comparing Denver with either Vegas, Phoenix, or Dallas is pretty icky.  Denver is SO much better.  But Kotkin is actually talking about metropolitan economic and job growth.  So the city of Denver’s redevelopment is laudable and welcome, I doubt it would really add a whole lot the the metro area’s overall numbers.  In fact, Kotkin argues that the best cities for the middle class and families are precisely those where suburbanization, rather than the currently fashionable new urbanism, is en vogue.  So Denver, Vegas, and Dallas metros are all measuring substantial growth because of our booming ‘burbs–not our newly gentrified urban squares.

          1. Are you talking about Denver the city or Denver the metro area?

            If you talking about the metro area, then of course the “substantial growth” is more attributable to the ‘burbs.  But that’s mostly because the ‘burbs in total have much greater population than the city by itself.  So I’m not sure what this fact tells us.

            If you are talking about the city, then of course the “substantial growth” is not attributable to the ‘burbs (because they ain’t in the city).  Which growth are you talking about and why?

            And…..Vegas is nuthin’ but ‘burbs.  Other than the strip, it’s a big Aurora aspiring to be the next (yawn) Phoenix.

            1. Sorry.  Child of the 80s present.  And I loved every minute of it…

              When they measure growth they do it in the seven county metropolitan area.  The point is that in other cities like Boston and San Francisco, the metro economic indicators are typically stagnant.  Just read the article, it should explain most of it.

              The point is that there are two sort of cities in America and you can look at them like a baseball stadium…

              New York and San Francisco are the luxury boxes.  Cost of living is prohibitive, job growth is minimal, and there are very few families.  These towns are almost unanimously liberal.

              Denver, Dallas, Vegas, etc. are all in the upper-deck.  These towns are not glamorous, but they are affordable and family-friendly and provide the best prospects for “normal” people to get into the game.  The author cites the fact that in the luxury cities, only 10% of American wage-earners could hope to live there, but in hokey cowtowns like Charlotte and Denver, it’s actually higher than the 50% that the country as a whole averages.

              In other words, Denver and Dallas may not be the sexiest town alive, according to Time magazine, but they are fine places to raise a family and make some money.  And for that reason, they are growing, economically and demographically (with big families and immigrants).  The point about suburbs is that since these are typically famiily-friendly places, cities like Denver (which is “all suburbs”) and Vegas (which is also “all suburbs”) are likely to have a lot of housing and economic activity in these extensive suburbs.  You can almost draw a corellary between suburban cities like Denver and positive economic indicators and pro-family places (measured by good schools, jobs, churches, child-safety, etc.).  Likewise, New York and San Francisco are child-LESS places with little job opportunity for the average Joe.

              Read the article and read his book.  He’s a veritable gem.

              1. I understand your earlier post better and the article better.  I still think it’s odd to compare the entire metro area of Denver to only the city of San Francisco (rather than to the entire Bay area, which is growing and where many families live).  That seems like comparing apples to oranges.

                And you lost me when you said Denver is all suburbs.  Compared to Vegas, Charlotte, and Phoenix, Denver’s downtown and inner city are significant.

              2. And that is that there is something inherently wrong or deficient in cities that aren’t “family friendly.”  So?  If cities were only inhabited by well educated single and DINK couples, so what?  That’s who can afford to live in the high income ghettos of SF, NY, etc. 

                No one I’ve ever talked to had a problem with some people preferring to live in cities, ‘burbs, or the country.  Each to their own. 

                Texas cities, BTW, are very family friendly and have low housing prices for two reasons:  Unlike SF and NY, they are not constrained geographically.  Second, their culture has long approved of annexation and expansion.  The result is that housing stays very affordable, but the price is urban sprawl.

  4. We shall see if the rockstar candidate is starting to unravel the way howard dean did or if this is a one time slip of the tounge.  It can be hard for an unknown candidate to get used to life in the fishbowl with the media always watching.  It’ll be interesting to see if this gets traction or not.  My guess is that Obama gets a pass this time from the media, but if he slips again he could be in trouble.

    http://www.washingto

    1. the lives of the 3,000 dead Americans have been wasted.  this is a war of lies.  there is nothing good that has come of it.

      Yes, we’d be better off if Saddam was still in charge, and I’m not afraid to say it because it’s the truth.  And I’m right.  And I know I’m right.

      And you claiming otherwise is the most dishonest, disingenuous masquerade  I have ever seen.
       

      1. who claimed it was a mistake to say.  Why do you think he did that?  Is he scared to stand by his guns, is he caving the be politically correct or was it in fact a dumb thing to say?

        1. No, he’s a better man the President who is responsible of the deaths of those 3,000 soldiers and over 600,000 Iraqi’s. Bush can’t admit fault, mistake or take responsibility for his arrogance and ignorance.

            1. He never said “I made a mistake” but rather that it lies with the “Presidency.” But, what did he do after that, he made a bigger and more costly mistake to our troops and treasury by throwing another 50,000 troops into the middle of a civil war. 

                1. That is Bush saying that others made mistakes but as the President he is responsible for the mistakes of those others.

                  I have yet to hear him ever admit to making a mistake himself – except for appointing people who later disagreed with him.

    1. Brophy needs to stick to riding his trycle around the parking lot.  And as for Schulthies, Morse might arrest him if he gets out of too out hand.

      Bad Boys, Bad Boys watcha gonna do when they come for you!

      1. … who couldn’t count the votes right on his bill and got beaten up by Schultheis and Brophy.

        Brophy’s a great guy… you gotta love this quote:

        “He never saw it coming,” said Sen. Greg Brophy, R-Wray. “The next time that Senator Morse wants to take away the rights of law-abiding citizens, he’d better get up a little earlier in the morning.”

        Ouch! That has GOT TO HURT…

        1. I know it’s tough being in the minority, but all the whining, crying and bitching coming out of the minority office is not going to usher them back into power.  Little quips like that one out of little shits like Brophy only make us Dems laugh since we know he’s just a little fella on a ten speed ringing his own bell.

          Better luck next decade.

  5. Surprisingly, not a lot of talk about the central committee meetings this last weekend.  In Larimer, things went damn good.  The new board is made up of a bunch of titans.  No more infighting.  No more hidden agendas.  Just building the party and getting our candidates elected.  Dem’s better watch out. 

    1. From Larimer: The expected fireworks did not happen, and there was a peaceful transition of the Exec Board to a bunch of proven activists representing a pretty broad spectrum.

  6. http://www.breitbart

    Do you understand what 3G cellular technology is?  That’s super high speed data transmission.  Today, you can only get it on Sprint and Verizon and a few Cingular locations.  T-Mobile is rolling their’s out this year and next.  And if you want it, you will pay $60-100/mo for it. 

    And yet the Finns have a penetration of 50% 3G? 

    We strut around thinking we are so superior when by almost any objective measure, we are so far behind most of the world in everything except military expenditures. (Oh yeah, we are #1 in depression and mental illness.  Coulda done w/o that.)

  7. instances where seemingly intractable forces collided, was in the Russo-Japanese war…circa 1904. Teddy Roosevelt was President.

    The peace the President made possible then was the result of an extraordinary ability to impose his singular charge upon plural power. By sheer force of moral purpose, clarity of perception, master of detail and benign mastery of the participants, he settled the issue (paraphrasing from p. 414, paragraph 6 of theodore Rex by Edmund Morris).

    This country just doesn’t have the leadership the times require. Dangerous, indeed. And for you immigrants…peligoso…quidado.

    1. My father’s father was a photographer in the Austrian Navy – really, there was one – in about 1912.  They took a journey from Italy through the Suez canal, to Japan.  We have many dozens of photos of that trip, and I well remember the pictures of the captured Russian warships docked in Japan.

      What was amazing was the number of projectile holes in the smoke stacks!  Talk about the gang that couldn’t shoot straight!  I’m sure the Japanese ships faired no better, such meandering armament fire just typical of the day. 

      Going further back in time, I guess that’s how two armies could face each other, blast their muskets, and only a few would fall.

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

79 readers online now

Newsletter

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