CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese



President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*


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

(D) Joe Neguse*


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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks




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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg




CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Dave Williams



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*


CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen



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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi




State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
February 14, 2007 04:21 PM UTC

Wednesday Open Thread

  • by: Colorado Pols

Known to the state of California to cause cancer in laboratory animals.


91 thoughts on “Wednesday Open Thread

  1. The message Bush released last week in the new budget was headlined by the Page 1 declaration that “the budget I am presenting achieves balance by 2012.”

    It would be wonderful were deficits to disappear – if only it were true. But on the final page of the document, in Table S-10 on page 172, one learns the disturbing truth. In fiscal 2012, the president’s target year, the gross federal debt will – by his own estimate – grow by $372 billion.

    The emperor has no clothes or credibility. Certainly, don’t believe anything this bunch is saying about Iran.

  2. Here is how you fix campaign finance reform:

    1.  Do away with limits all together.
    2.  ONLY PEOPLE (not businesses or groups) can donate money.
    3.  Only people who are REGISTERED TO VOTE in the district they are giving money to can donate.  So, I can give as much as I want to, but ONLY to the State Rep or State Senator that I’m registered to vote for (governor as well). 

    Take away the veil of secrecy provided by groups and force PEOPLE to donate and ONLY in the district for which they can vote and it forces people to think about things. 

    What will this do?
    1.  Reduce the money chase to a limited pool of REGISTERED VOTERS.  NOT outside interests.  My rep should represent me, not a group from Virginia or worse, Colorado Springs!
    2.  Completely level the playing field.  Each and every candidate knows who they can get money from and who their opponent can get money from!  Think of the local issues debates that would then take place!  Talk about promoting the market place of ideas!
    3.  Allow complete freedom of speech for those who have a vested interest.  Let me give as much as I want to MY representative.

    But does this take away my “freedom of speech” to give money to other candidates outside my district?  No.  If that was the case, then me not being allowed to vote for other candidates outside my district limits my speech.  Hogwash!  My vested interest is ONLY actionable within my district!  If I want to influence another race, then I have to find a PERSON to give money to and have them donate it! 

    Me likey!!!

    1. Even Texas has that law preventing corporations from donating to campaigns.  Hard to believe, there, of all places. We need that at the federal level and in all states.

      I say corporations can partake of the political process when their kids can die in Iraq!

      1. LIke I said, if a Texas corporation wants to donate in a Colorado State House race, they need to find a registered voter in the district to make the donation.  Then, after the reporting comes out, the press and ordinary citizens can question this person as to why they did what they did.  If they are comfortable with that scrutiny, so be it.  If not, then perhaps individual registered voters would think twice about being the pass through due to social pressure from the press and their neighbors, not legal pressure.  I firmly believe that would curb things quicker than anything else! 

    2. First off the Supreme Court has said money is speech, and eventhough that’s a load of ****, this court won’t overturn it.  Second, do away with limits?  It some cases two, three or four people could finance an entire run.  Does that sound Democratic?

    3. I would not want to restrict it to the district one lives in. Living in central Denver I generally don’t worry too much about the Dem winning the seat here. I do worry about and would like to be able to contribute to candidates who are running in more competitive districts. Having a Dem represent me only goes so far if the Dems are in the minority over all.

      But I do agree 100% with limiting contributions to individual people and not organizations and lifting limits.

    4. So you’re saying that I can’t buy an ad on Denver television saying that I don’t like Tom Tancredo or Mark Udall just because I don’t live in their district?

      I’ve got a stack of Supreme Court case law, starting with the First Amendment, continuing through Buckley v. Valeo and all subsequent rulings, that says that’s unconsitutional.

      The whole point of the First Amendment is to allow people to say that they don’t like the government.  And it’s not about just being able to stand on a soapbox in the public square – even that soapbox costs money, after all.  And so, for that matter, did the ink and paper that was required to print Common Sense.  Should that have been illegal?  Not according to the founders, hence the First Amendment.

      This website costs money.  Should it be regulated?  How about if there are too many pro-Ritter or pro-Beaprez posters here?  Should we divvy up the cost of that speech and mandate full disclosure? 

      If the Denver Post can endorse, can I write a Jack Shaftoe newsletter, mail it to my friends and endorse someone?  Not according to the FEC.  Why?  What’s the difference?  Is there a registry for what constitutes the “news media”?  Do you think there should be?

      I get fired up about when people throw around new and creative rules to limit speech.  It’s almost as if people don’t want us to be talking about our elected officials – almost as if it’s purely an incumbent protection program. 

      1. But i figured someone would go after the candidates. I wanted to address the initiative side of the argument. There was a recent article in the Atlantic, I think, that discussed Tim Gill and his cadre of rich, gay philanthropists and the efforts to fund initiatives to pass gay marriage, civil unions, and gay rights initiatives in a variety of states, colorado included. As an aside it also gave a quick bio on Gill, much of which I was in the dark about.

        We all know what happened, all but one state outlawed gay marriage. But, why should a person of another state not be allowed to fund initiatives in another state? Aside from the first amendment argument, my argument is that some states act as bellweather states. When they pass an initiative other states, oftentimes, follow suit. Is it unreasonable to fund an out of state initiative with the expressed intent of hoping that measure catches on in others and presumably the givers home state?

        1. This seems to be an overstatement.  Does the article list the name, number, and wealth of the “cadre” members?  Does this article use the term “cadre”?

          1. http://www.theatlant

            “How a network of gay political donors is stealthily fighting sexual discrimination and reshaping American politics”

            Great Article, and since I read it on a forum, Im not sure if registration is required. If so, I can cut and paste the whole thing in a diary. Let me know.

              1. It was not meant to cause offense, and I was using the term cadre as compliment, i.e., a group of skilled political activists who also happen to be rich and gay. My wording was terrible and I apologize for not making my position more clear.

        2. “But, why should a person of another state not be allowed to fund initiatives in another state? Aside from the first amendment argument…”

          That First Amendment argument that you mention is a pretty important one, no?

        3. So you think I shouldn’t be allowed to purchase a newspaper ad in Wyoming giving my opinion on a ballot issue?

          The Gill involvement is a matter of scale.  But speech is speech – especially if it’s someone’s personal resources.

          1. And I apologize for the poor wording. I aboslutely think that anyone should be able to purchase an ad, provide monetary support, volunteer, whatever for any candidate or issue that they support in any county, city, or state. My contention was that some states act as bellweathers. If an initiative passes there than it may gain support from other states who were on the fence prior to the passing. As this can and does happen, I believe that any individual should be allowed to provide support for the out of state initiative, candidate, whatever.

            As far as Gill is concerned, I totally support him and his efforts to pass equal rights initiatives in a number of states. I am saddened that it wasnt more effective. I hope he is able to garner more support, and contributors.

            Again, sorry for poor wording.

    5. You equate the two, for reasons I don’t understand.  If the two were equal, it would be difficult to prohibit a person from voting multiple times in the same race.

    6. People can still create 527s that can operate anywhere in the country. Remember: 527s are not connected with candidates in any way (supposedly). So I can start a pro-gay marriage 527 in  Vermont and run my ads in Musgrave’s district during elections and it would still be legal under these guidelines.

      1. Sorry, the 527’s are not a “loophole” – they are method for the IRS to account for money being spent legally on voter communications.

        Or, look at this way: You can’t pass a law telling me that I can’t buy a newspaper ad saying that I don’t like the government (see the First Amendment and Buckley v. Valeo).  The term 527 simply refers to the section of IRS law that tells you how to report it.  They can’t prohibit it, but they can make you report it to the IRS.  That’s what 527’s are.

        1. There’s no denying that the widespread use of 527s has been a direct result of people trying to get around McCain Feingold. So in that regards, it’s a loop hole.

      1. Allowing only those people who live in the district to contribute money would seem only to enhance the results of the gerrymandering.  That is, a Democrat in an D-dominated district (where D’s have a huge advantage in registered voters as a result of gerrymandering) would likely get much more money than an R…..because more D’s live in the district.

        But maybe I misunderstand you.

        1. The whole purpose of gerrymandering is not to make each vote have the ability to make a difference. Rather, it is to ensure the seat is safe for a member of a specific party. While we may wish for more “fair” results that seem to fit what the actual law prescribes, people who participate in gerrymandering are seeking to hold onto the seat strongly.

          My point was that such ideas on donations only make the results of gerrymandering even more set in stone. Anyway, sorry if I was unclear, but we are on the same page.

    1. Now I need a drink. Thanks Pars……
      I don’t normally drink during the weekdays.
      But hopefully after I pour some Seagram’s in my eyes to stop the burning, I can pour some down my throat to stop the dogs in my head from barking…….

    2. Really bright women have an attraction all their own, the energy level, the obvious intelligence…The fake pix may  not show her real boobs but it can’t hide her brains.

      1. Intelligence is erotic, “dumb broads” are not, even though many men need them to feel superior.

        I was in proximity with Hillary when the G8 conference was here.  She’s an attractive woman for her age.  If she wasn’t who she is, and I met her socially, I’d be interested.

        Certainly better than Condi or E. Dole, etc. etc. etc. (OK, I surrender at Christie Whitman, isn’t that her name?)

          1. And I have pondered why I find intelligent women sexy.  The Oedipal case could be made that my mother is such…..intelligent……not sure about sexy at 90…..although my dad loves her still.

            Maybe it’s nothing more than having more in common and hence, liking one another easier.

            Or maybe they are kinkier……..

    1. opportunistic, political hack.  His business has no credibility and his reputation is poor.  I laugh anytime someone admits hiring him.  They always regret it.

  3. How do you describe Camille Paglia?  Ever since I read “Sexual Personnae” I’ve been in literary love with her.  She calls herself an old school feminist: don’t run to authority for resolution to your problem, squeeze some balls.  She also said that if women were in charge, we would still be living in grass huts.  She was referring to the tendency of men to create and make.  Needless to say, not real popular with the mainstream feminists.

    Brilliant, satirical, insightful, take no prisoners, doesn’t care where the chips fall, this lesbian academic draws on a huge base of knowledge, especially in the arts, and an IQ off of the scale.  I don’t always agree with her, but you can’t leave her proximity without being affected.

    Oh yeah, she’s back at after a six year absence.

  4. OBAMA: Two prominent black elected officials in South Carolina — State Senators Robert Ford and Darrell Jackson — endorsed US Senator Hillary Clinton on Tuesday. The influential duo told the AP they were courted by Senator Obama, but decided to endorse Clinton because they want the Democrats to win in November. “I love Obama, but I’m not going to kill myself … Everybody else on the ballot is doomed [if Obama wins the nomination]. Every Democratic candidate running on that ticket would lose because [Obama] is black and he’s at the top of the ticket — we’d lose the House, the Senate and the Governors and everything,” said Ford. Just imagine the backlash if a white politician had made those same remarks.


    1. All three Dems are outpolling all three Republicans. Edwards could soundly beat McCain, Guily, and Romney (especially since almost 80% of Americans have no clue who he is).

    2. That’s exactly why Obama supporters (like myself) don’t want Hillary to win. I don’t think people (gecko) will vote for Hillary because they hate her guts.

      1. She really enrages the Geckos of the world.  I’m not sure what is the core reason for the intense hatred.  Do they despise all left-leaning, aggressive, women in power?  Is their a hatred for Pelosi also?  Is it related to her sticking with Bill after his indescretions?  Any ideas?

          1. the right wing has a template….which always includes a woman to hate…..she has to be assertive, have no man around, progressive attitude and a instantly recognizable first name….and has to have the ability to “rive” up the old men into fighting mode……So we have: Rosie, Nancy. Hillary, Roseanne….Barbra…(for Streistand…all though not so much) Say the name and the old men who, I suspect, can’t get it on any other way, go bananas….

            The reaction is a conditioned response….it is like throwing peanuts at monkeys or watching the carp feed off the dock at the old Lakeside.  talk about sound and fury signifying nothing…….

              1. The Commie loving traitor and the Hildabeast.
                That would surely be enough to ruin the Dems chances for a win in ’08.

                I always wondered why Fonda’s father never dis-owned the treacherous bitch.

                  1. I always liked Peter and his dad (as an actor that is). Never knew much about him as a person.
                    Peter is good in his own right too.
                    I think my favorite movie of his next to Easyrider is “Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry”.
                    Except for them smashing up a really nice 69 Charger that is.

        1. but it’s there.  You bring up her name and some men and women go a little nutty.  I think when it comes to hating people you don’t really know, it’s all a little irrational. (Sorry Geck!)

      2. R’s cant stand a woman that has a mind of her own in the Whitehouse bedroom.  Very indirectly, it shows what R’s think about women. 

        The reasons Gecko and so many ditto-heads hate Hillary is because they have been told to do so! It’s nothing more complicated than that. On substantive issues, you can agree or disagree with them, just like any other candidate. 

        But just say “HILLARY” around any bunch of Gecko-heads and they start jumping up and down and screeching like trained chimpanzees.


        1. Someone from the “R” side of the aisle has to take the bait here.

          Condi Rice
          Kay Bailey Hutchinson
          Elizabeth Dole
          Christine Whitman
          Olympia Snowe
          Susan Collins
          Jeanne Kirkpatrick
          Margaret Thatcher

          Grow up.

            1. It’s yet another, frequent, example of RW’ers having trouble with reading comprehension. 

              “The sky is blue.”

              “You have some kind of problem with pistachio trees?”

                1. I don’t hate Bush, I feel very sorry for him. Deep down inside, he knows that he is so inept and such a laughing stock for the world.  All his power and he gets very little respect.

                  Bush has rewritten the definition of the Peter Principle. For those who advance WAY beyond their abilities, we should call it the George Principle.

            1. Veteran reporter Carl Bernstein says the lack of truth and candor from the Bush administration is unprecedented in his experience.

              Comparing the Nixon administration’s press relations to those of Bush, Bernstein says, “Nixon’s relationship to the press was consistent with his relationship to many institutions and people. He saw himself as a victim. We now understand the psyche of Richard Nixon, that his was a self-destructive act and presidency.

              “The Bush administration,” Bernstein continues, “is a far different matter in which disinformation, misinformation and unwillingness to tell the truth — a willingness to lie both in the Oval Office, in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, in the office of the vice president, the vice president himself — is something that I have never witnessed before on this scale.”

              In the country I love….

          1. Yeah.  I’d rather listen to BF getting the R’s all pissed off because…what was it?….she knew young women had sex or something?

            At least she wasn’t lying like Condi. 

    3. Ford’s relative Harold Ford is the new head of the DLC, and the Clintons were instrumental in the formation and nurturing of the DLC; it’s no surprise that the somewhat conservative Ford family is endorsing where its interests lie.

      Aside from that, those words sound an awful lot like the words of long-oppressed Southern black people – “we can’t win if a black person runs”.  Newsflash: the polls say we can.

      1. maybe they are looking at how badly harold Ford Jr did in TN and are realisticly expecting the same thing to happen to Obama if he were to get the nod. 

          1. Right now there are only two african americans elected to statewide office in the entire country.  Obama and Deval Patrick of MA.  Sadly, what happened in TN is reflective of where our country is at.  If you think the rest of the country is ready for African american leaders then why aren’t there more then two elected to statewide office?  The reason is our country is not ready yet.

  5. I’m curious.  When someone consistently cites that he was “educated at Mesa, Fort Lewis, and St. Mary’s in Texas,” but never gets more specific than that, doesn’t it mean he never graduated?

      1. Maybe you could take the bar exam anyway, but it would be a waste of time I’m sure.

        It’s just weird the way this particular phrasing is used by McInnis everywhere.  It reminded me of Beauprez claiming an “Education” degree rather than a “Physical Education” one.  If you work hard enough to get through law school, I’d think you’d be proud to say so.

    1. and spend 10 seconds on Google next time before cooking up some dumbass conspiracy theory.  I did and McInnis’ bio clearly stated he attended Mesa College before transferring to Fort Lewis, where he received his BA.  Then he received a J.D. (law dedgree) at St. Mary’s.  Saying “educated at Mesa and Fort Lewis” is just shorthand for having attended both institutions but getting the degree from the latter.
      You cannot even take the bar exam in Colorado without being a graduate of an accredited law school.  By the way, pro se just means you are representing yourself.  You don’t have to be a lawyer to represent just yourself, pro se.  But you can’t represent anybody else without being admitted to the bar. 

      1. The phrase quoted is very typical of presenting facts so that the reader makes a conclusion that isn’t valid.  It was a poor choice of word’s on McInnis’ part.  I think it quite hard to get into any law school without a Bachelors.

  6. Talking about a drastic increase in internet use during a flu pandemic when everyone is working at home.

    “Is there a need for a YouTube during a national emergency?” asked John Thomas, vice president of enterprise systems at a large, New York-based financial institution that he asked not be identified.

  7. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice misled the U.S. Congress when she said last week that she had not seen a 2003 Iranian proposal for talks with the United States, a former senior government official said on Wednesday.

    Flynt Leverett, who worked on the National Security Council when it was headed by Rice, likened the proposal to the 1972 U.S. opening to China. He said he was confident it was seen by Rice and then-Secretary of State Colin Powell but “the administration rejected the overture.”

    Speaking at a conference on Capitol Hill, Leverett said “this was a serious proposal, a serious effort” by  Iran to lay out a comprehensive agenda for U.S.-Iranian rapprochement.

    “The Bush administration up to and including Secretary Rice is misleading Congress and the American public about the Iran proposal,” he said.

    Why all the lies? What is this administrations true objective?

      1. There is, with this administration, a dangerous mixture of religion and the military, granted. To my sensibilities, that mixture is absurd on its face. Useful in the middle ages for conquest and crusading, but not in the 21st century IMHO.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

48 readers online now


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