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

52%↑

48%

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

50%

50%

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
April 24, 2007 03:24 PM UTC

Tuesday Open Thread

  • 99 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“It’s not important for them to know. It’s only important for me to know.”

–George C. Scott, from Patton

Tweet
Share

Comments

99 thoughts on “Tuesday Open Thread”

        1. In 2006 the Green Party Candidate got 26% against her having raised no money!  And as far as I know he wasn’t well known at all (if he is someone let me know)

          So in short that should be some sign of weakness for her if an unknown moneyless 3rd party candidate can get as much of the vote against her as the republican the year before! 

          And would her vote for war funding  be a possible primary issue?

          1. the anti-DeGette protest voters needed SOMEWHERE to go.  The other major party in Colorado dropped the ball in C.D. 1 by failing to run a candidate.  They’ll probably do the same thing in C.D. 2 next time around, figuring they need to spend all of their money and human resources saving Marilyn Musgrave.
              DeGette has done a couple of good things, in particular, her work on stem cell research legislation is highly commendable. But nobody in either party should ever get an entirely free pass from the party opposite.
              There’s got to be one presentable Republican in C.D. 1 who can challenge DeGette.  I mean the Dems put up a quality candidate like Jay Fawcett in C.D. 5 to run against Still-born last year.

    2. It’s so you’ll comment about it, like you do every day, which allows everyone else to explain it to you — like they do every day.

      At some point either you or we will tire of doing so, but in the meantime, please go on with your bad self.

      1. Is Degette beatable?  What if a dynamic, well-funded Dem challenger made her run a primary race?

        What if a maverick “R” (pro-gay rights, environmentally hip) ran against her?

        Any chance?

        2. is no, not a chance. Not unless DeGette really screws up bad, and even if that happened I imagine she would not run again and there would be a Dem primary which would be the election that counts, like the Repub primary in CDs 5 and 6.

          S/he would have to be one hell of a great candidate for the R’s (and one hell of a loser for the D’s) and I can’t think of a single Repub in Denver with the necessary reputation that would be the basis for such a run. We all saw what happened in CD5 when nearly the same situation happened in reverse.

        3. as long as DeGette is climbing the leadership ladder in the House no local Dem is going to challenger her. Even if her ascent stalls out, I just don’t see her facing a primary challenge unless it’s from the far left fringe (no way they’d get more than a fraction of the vote).

          1. but do you think she is really active or well liked in Denver?  I’m pretty sure if Hickenlooper, Romanoff or Gordon ran against her they could knock her off.  She seems like she is more DC then Denver.

            1. But the corollary is, Would they? DeGette is no Pat Schroeder as far as local popularity goes but she definitely has gone further in DC than her predecessor. That matters to the party and their players, if not as much with the voters at large.

              BTW, I’d say Hick is the only good bet against DeGette. I’d bet that the average voter is at best peripherally aware of who Romanoff and Gordon are. But then again primary voters aren’t average (again, see CD5)…

              1. What the hell does that mean?  DeGette was in the Minority party in the House for twelve years.  Schroeder was always a member of the Majority. Schroeder pioneered legislation for women..pension reform, improved welfare for military dependents and the critical Family Medical Leave Act….which passed Congress THREE times and was vetoed by Republicans Reagan and Bush…

                FMLA was the first law signed by Clinton when he took office…fulfilling a campaign promise…

                Where you people get your information, I have no idea.

                1. No dig at Schroeder, she was an awesome legislator. But in over 20 years in the majority party how far did she ascend in House leadership? DeGette’s gone further in 10 years as a minority member.

                  Or can you dispute that, or otherwise contribute to the discussion?

                2. Although you raise a good point about which party was controlling Congress, I think of DeGette as a rather lackluster representative.

                  Until her work on the stem cell bill that Vetoless George vetoed last year, I can not name anything of substance that she has done besides get re-elected. 

                  Perhaps I don’t know the whole picture, but there’s my take.  Schroeder, love her or hate her, kicked ass.

                  1. That’s all I meant. When it comes to the question of whether a Dem will challenge DeGette in a primary, I think that’s an important whether or not she gets much accomplished in terms of sponsoring and passing legislation. And dwyer, in his conceited fashion, does bring up a good point about Schroeder being in the majority all the time (not quite accurate – her last term was in the minority party) – it’s easier for legislators in the majority than in the minority. Let’s keep an eye on DeGette for the next couple of terms and see what else she does, and give here another chance to impress.

        4.   Well, Ken Chloeber, the notorious rodeo jackass rider from Leadville, was once semi-pro gay rights.  (He spronsored the hate crimes bill in ’95 when then state Rep. DeGette declined to do so because she was too busy running for assistant House minority leader.) 
            He is also something of a pro-labor Republican, which is something even rarer that a pro gay rights Republican!  Since DeGette has never been all that loved by organized labor, Chloeber was a smart choice for the GOP.  Or so you would think……
            He challenged DeGette in ’02 (which was not a bad year for the Colorado GOP with Owens leading the ticket), yet Chloeber ended up with only about 25% of the vote.

              1. Just going from memory, Lamborn got 23%. I remember it because it was less than 25% – the first time I’d heard of a “winner” polling so low.

  3. Democrats can’t recall sex acts while the GOP can’t recall criminal and immoral acts… 

    Seriously, can you NOT remember when you got a bj???

    2. mtnpublius is the HACK of THE DAY. Talking point Queen. UHHHHHH mtn.. we got a new Prezdint and Administration. Didn’t you get the memo?  What a Maroooooon, (credit to Bugs Bunny).

      1. Patrick, I take it you have no sex acts in your past that you can forget?  This man is in more dire need of a “lewensky” than any man alive (apologies to Robin Williams!)…

  4. There is an article in today’s Denver Post discussing a legislative vote to place on the 2008 ballot a constitutional amendment to make it more difficult to amend the constitution.

    http://www.denverpos…

    The article says:

    “Colorado voters have added 21,000 words to the state’s constitution since 1990. That’s almost three times the size of the U.S. Constitution.”

    MY QUESTION:  What happened in 1990 that opened the floodgates?

    I could research this myself but I’m too lazy.  Does anyone know the answer?

    thanks in advance

    1. of the initiative process to amend the Constitution. In ’90 Colorado had term limits and campaign finance on the ballot.

      As you know, the voters are no longer the ones bringing Const amendments to the ballot.  Colorado has become a place for special interests to float their ideas because it is so easy to amend our Constitution.

      1. Do you know why that is?  Was it the first amendment to go to the ballot after some change in the process?  Or, did the ballot numbering system start over with TABOR for some other reason?

        [following the “new” numbering scheme, we all know what Amendment 2 was]

  5. what kind of an idiot lets his 4 yr old walk around near an end zone of any football game, let alone a Div I practice? What did this moron expect? Thank God the kid is ok, but you have got to wonder about parents sometimes. I feel bad for the player.

    2. He didn’t even know the little boy was there and felt terrible afterward, according to the news reports. The kid’s mom was on  the news last night talking about how she hoped the incident wouldn’t change the “family feel” that the CSU spring game has.

      Uh, mom, what needs to change is your husband’s judgment in letting his four-year-old son wander clearly into potential harm’s way. Kids wander and they do it at light-speed; what are the odds that it could happen while on the sidelines of a live football game?

      1. I’m not a parent, so maybe I’m speaking out of my depth, but I would think a field where 22 200 lb plus men are running around hitting each other might be a place you’d want to hold on to your 4 yr old.

    1. that was published in the book The Hydrogen Economy but I remember that the estimated reserves were high enough to make Iraq the #2 country on the list in oil reserves. I read that prior to the start of the war and knew it was a factor in  Bush’s plans, whether he spoke about them or not.

      1. W. would never invade another country over their resources. He did because he is SUCH a humanitarian and VERY ethical. After all, he would never lie to us.

  7.   They really tangled!  Former judge Grafton M. Biddle (no need here for the salutation “honorable”) and Laurie A. Steinman, a prosecutor, face disciplinary hearings after admitting to having sex in the judge’s chambers and being together in shower facilities at the Douglas County courthouse. http://www.denverpos…
      In addendum to the open threads from Friday through yesterday, the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel has decided to investigate (was there any choice?).

    1. It does a judge and a prosecutor good to get laid now on then between cases: Relaxes them and makes them more jovial, just what every court needs. I think we should institutionalize sex between judges and lawyers during recesses (“in recesses while in recess” can be the ad slogan). We should make it a requirement to be in good standing with the Colorado Bar.

      Besides, what’s dishonorable about a quickie in the shower?

      God, man, find a blog that gives a damn.

      1. Sex in the courtroom should be encouraged, if not required.  Perhaps a b.j. or other sexual favor can substitute for the docket fee. 

        But, with whom will the transactional attorneys (rarely in a courtroom) be required to have sex?  A bar association committee will have to study this question and release a four-volume set of answers.

      2. . . . have the exact desired qualifications and thinking to fit right in with the Colorado Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel!  Contact John S. Gleason or Nancy Cohen to see if there are any vacancies.  The pay is probably decent.

      3. the next time you are drug into court for say, someone sueing you over a property line or something, would you want to know that the judge and prosecuting attorney are literally in bed together?
        Think about what you say before spouting nonsense.

        Do all liberals actually encourage extra marital affairs?

        Shows just how low your sides morals really are.

        1. Actually, I think it definately can present a conflict of interest for a judge to be “in bed” with a prosecutor who appears before that judge (though whether this was the case or not is not specified), though less so if it is not a clandestine relationship. Generally speaking, one would have to recluse him or herself if they were to be assigned the same case (judges and prosecutors can be married, of course. Their just some rules guiding how it’s done).

          I can’t speak for all liberals, but I am in no way offended by people’s private sexual choices. They’re not my business, they don’t affect me, and I don’t see why anyone not directly involved would feel obligated to presume to have any say in the matter. “Extra-marital” can either mean pre-marital, or concurrent with a marriage to other people. We don’t know which is the case in this instance. Neither is our business, and one is no one’s business but the two people involved (except in terms of avoiding a conflict of interest, as explained above).

          I’m not in a competition to claim the moral high ground. I’m in a competition to produce ideas and engage in actions that contribute to human happiness. If there is a moral proscription which, on balance, does more to diminish than to augment human happiness, then it is not an element of MY morality, and not a morality I feel in any way bound to respect.

          And come on, Geckeneezer, I’m not sure that “nonsense” is really the best adjective to describe what I spout. I’m hurt, man. Really hurt.

            1.   . . . according to the complaint, the judge directed her to spoliate (destroy) email evidence of their lascivious courthouse affair.  He was a magistrate and then judge for fifteen years.  Imagine how many cases this guy presided over, where he ruled on the admissibility of evidence in cases that determined who lost their house or who went to jail or who lost their parental rights.
                . . . according to the complaint, he’d sneak into the courthouse’s women’s shower in the early a.m. to be with her, because he was too damn cheap to get a hotel, I guess?

            2. Once again, I am moved by substance, not form. Let’s put the best spin on it, for the sake of argument: Let’s say that the prosecutor doesn’t have a case in the judge’s court, and they have agreed to make sure that she never does. Neither are married (though it doesn’t really matter, in my opinion, in terms of their public duties). They’re a bit kinky and both share a secret fantasy of getting it on in chambers. I say: Lock the damn door! Don’t get caught! Have a good time! As long as they clean up after themselves, how, exactly, have they harmed the public interest under these circumstances? And, as far as I’m concerned, that’s their only obligation to the public.

              Sorry, folks, but I think we could do with a lot less arbitrary morality, and a lot more commitment to caring about one another’s welfare. That’s why I’m a liberal and not a conservative.

              1. Remember that story about the Thorup case described in more detail by “Condor”  —the one that more than a few people said was whiney and boring– the one where he alleged that his ex was sleeping with her atty *during* the divorce proceedings and the two married a few months after the divorce was final?  In his case, Louise Culberson Smith, the OARC ass’t regulation counsel hired to create the “phone center” in 1999 designed to screen out cases, told the complainant to quit annoying her and that the only person, who had any standing to make that allegation would have been the ex-wife.  (Of course, we have no evidence of that conversation, becuase they eliminated any paper trail when they went to this call center model, which was the intent).
                  Now, compare and look at В¶ 30 on p. 6 of the People v. Biddle complaint  –who reported the affair?
                Like I said, it’s always a double-standard.. 

              2. that according to the papers she appeared before him (I mean in the courtroom, not under the desk in chambers) multiple times during the affair.  It’s a pretty egregious breach of judicial ethics. Disbarment would not surprise, because whatever tilta says, Colorado’s attorney discipline system hands out plenty of sanctions.  I’m with you on arbitrary public morality, but this one ain’t arbitrary.

                2. This shameful episode is very far over the line….which is why everyone expected the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel to file charges against both, after this story broke last December.  The reason why it’s in the news again is because, as expected, the ARC has filed charges and those charges recently become public.

                  http://www.rockymoun…

                  Biddle was a judge for only 6 months before he resigned, but he may have known the prosecutor from his time as a magistrate.

        2. Henry Hyde, Dan Burton, Phil Crane, Bob Livingston, Newt Gingrich, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Ted Haggard………I believe that they are all Republicans.  So are they taking their cues from liberals when they had their extra marital affairs?

      4. If that Oklahoma judge could use his vacu-jack during trials, I don’t see any reason for Colorado judges to wait for a recess to get it on with the lawyers.  Of course, there’s that pesky criminal conviction and prison sentence….

        1. In addition to the “penis pump” incidents, observed by multiple people at multiple times of each day of several trials, I seem to recall that one witness observed him shaving his testacles from the bench.
            AndQuoting from the Jan. 20, 2005 Affidavit for warrant:
            “Thereas Clee, Creek County Court Reporter observed Judge Thompson put hand lotion on his hand and start ‘messing around’ with his hands between his legs.  Ms. Clee observed Judge Thompson’s facial expression change and motions taking place with his hands indicating the judge was masturbating. A short time later, Ms. Clee observed Judge Thompson’s penis with his hand still wrapped around it.”

    2.   Right up until the story finally breaks, everything possible was done to keep it low profile –presumably to save the honorable judge from embarrassment — In a February 12, 2007 article (http://www.knowyourc…), the article reads: “Gov. Bill Ritter made his first judicial appointment, naming Monica Jo Gomez . . . to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Grafton F. Biddle.”  Retirement?
        On one of the RMN blogs (http://blogs.rockymo…), one poster wrote, “Stop the press. He’s 57 and she’s 29. That’s all we need to know. Here’s how sex really works for her. When he leaves her place around 10pm to go home to his 4th wife after a session of what he calls sex, she’s on the phone calling one of her 29 yr old stud’s who doesn’t need viagra, oxygen and hamburger helper to get the job done. These people didn’t reinvent anything new.”

      3.   Great editorial/blog in the RMN (above captioned) : “The [former] city attorney, who has been a judge for 14 years and earned his law degree from Harvard, says he bought a laptop from a guy in a parking lot who needed bail money. The laptop turns out to be stolen from the City and County Building where the city attorney worked when he was a judge. It was traced to the city attorney’s home through the trail it left on the Internet. Sure. Makes sense to me. Who doesn’t acquire their electronics gear from a guy wearing a stocking cap and conducting business in a parking lot?”
          One reader comment: “This is the same man who as a judge sent an entire family away for selling things out of their cars, back of trucks, etc. He had the nerve to sit at the bench and give a long [diatribe] about how buying and selling stolen items was one of the largest threats to the hard-working american citizen who ends up paying more, because of theft, yada, yada, yada…”
          Another reader comment: “The parking lot of the courthouse has video. We, big brother-the big thinkers expect physical altercations on a courthouse parking lot sooner or later as that’s where parties involved in disputes park their cars before entering the dome of justice . . . People suing each other aren’t anymore happier than the guys fighting at the bar. The reason why this guy just stepped down is (do I have to type it?): He never bought the laptop from a guy in a parking lot. And you’ll never see video of it either. However, if it was a someone carjacking a city attorney in the lot, that video would be on the 5 O’clock news.”
          And another: “He just might be innocent . . . and I have some ocean front property to sell you in Colorado. The closet was close to his office; he had the key . . . yet someone else made their way to the closet, stole it and then sold it to him. In a pig’s eye. He stepped down, but I doubt if he will be charged with anything further. The Mayor hires illegals for his restaurants and appoints this clown as City Attorney.”
          http://blogs.rockymo…

    4.   . . . that I missed this one from a month back:  Andrew Oh-Willeke, Esq. reported, “Denver Magistrate Robert E. Gilbert apparently didn’t get the memo informing him that judges aren’t supposed to try to date the people trying cases before them.”  (http://www.coloradoc…)  But, wait’ll you hear Magistrate Gilbert’s statement to the RMN: “I can’t believe those bastards,” referring to the three-judge panel of the Colorado Supreme Court.  “Yeah, I’m pissed off.  I didn’t do a damn thing wrong.” (http://www.rockymoun…).
        What occured to me when I read this was what happened to a guy, recently, who called a judge a “Dirty Son of a bitch.”  He was acquitted of the charges against him but, was sentenced three years. (http://www.knowyourc…)  I’m wondering whether this magistrate will be treated any differently for his [indirect] contemptuous comments regarding the S.Ct.
        This also reminds me of a recent California case, People v. Zachary, N0 C051431 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2006), where an appellate court concluded that the district judge’s passing statement referring to the appeals court as a “Kangaroo court,” was a violation of  Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Ethics (“A Judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary”).
        It’s one thing for one of us to express our perjorative opinion; it’s quite another when a judge or an attorney does so in this manner.  If Gilbert has such contempt for the orders of the higher court, why should we have any respect for his orders?

      1. of this great quote:

        I sort of grew up going into Federal court with the understanding that the difference between God and a Federal district judge  is God doesn’t think he is a Federal district judge.
          — Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA)

    1. Their “Views & Opinions” is all RMN, Loveland Herald Report, Lola Spradley and Bob Beauprez.  I’d rather do my own picking and choosing than have some wingnut do it for me, thanks.

      (Who is “Flat Creek Tech” and who paid them to develop this site that they won’t disclose?)

        1. Beauprez used Flat Creek for his campaign as well. This a thinly veiled attempt at increasing the amount of people that read opinions by washed up politicians like Beauprez. Apparently his “Line of Sight” newsletter wasn’t getting out to enough people now that he can’t just send it out to all of his “constituents” and bill the taxpayers.

      2. Wingnuts like Beauprez have destroyed our Party, and aren’t worth the time of day.  If you want that kind of entertainment without the veneer of newsworthiness, check out John Andrews’ BrokebackAmerica website (http://www.backbonea…), and check your brain at the door.  And a word to the wise: Andrews (like most right-wingnuts) censors everyone who doesn’t agree with him. 

      3. They never permit comment, because ordinary people can show just how vapid they are.  Below is a part of an open letter to Both-Ways Bob … which I disseminated at the Republican State Assembly in the Springs:

        First, from the blog: Both-Ways Bob: “I fully expect that Reid will never suffer the fate he deserves.  And, I am no lawyer.  But, I can read and reason.”

        “Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress.  But I repeat myself.”  — Mark Twain
        —————————————————

        Dear Rep. Beauprez:

        In your letter of March 27 (2006), you said you were “going to work hard” to earn my support at the State Assembly, and invited me to examine your record.  And while I am only a lowly precinct committeeperson and state delegate, I would like to take you up on that challenge.  After all, I am not about to walk my precinct for you without good answers to my neighbors’ fair questions.

        What Would Ronald Reagan Say?
          First and foremost, I’d like to know what you mean when you claim that you are a “principled conservative.”  After all, I think I know what a “conservative” is, insofar as a gentleman I respect immensely once said,

        I think the Republican Party should take the lead and, as I say, raise that banner and say this is what we stand for. And what we stand for would be fiscal responsibility. … I think that it should be a government, or a party, that has a position that makes it plain that even though there are social faults that may lead to people turning to crime the individual must be held accountable for his misdeeds. That on the world scene we’re going to do whatever is necessary to insure that we can retain this free system of ours; in other words, we will maintain a defensive posture that is sufficient to deter aggression.#

          While President Reagan preached fiscal responsibility, you’ve spent our money like a drunken sailor, increasing the federal deficit by over $2 trillion while on your watch — with no end in sight.#  While Ronald Reagan maintained that individuals are to be held accountable for their misdeeds, you contributed $1,000 to Tom DeLay’s legal defense fund.#  While Ronald Reagan counseled that we maintain a defensive posture sufficient to deter aggression, you authorized the invasion of a sovereign country which posed no credible threat to our legitimate national interests.  These are questions I have already had to field; with respect, I don’t see how your record reflects conservative values, as so ably espoused by President Reagan. 

        It’s About Bribery, Bob!
          The DeLay scandal is especially troubling, insofar as it raises legitimate doubts regarding your character.  Back here in the hinterlands, we call his golfing junket to Scotland a bribe; it doesn’t really matter whether it was technically “legal.”#  If you honestly don’t understand at the core of your being that what Tom DeLay did — and forget the indictment in Texas — was horribly wrong, then you don’t understand the principles and values in my precinct.

          Coupled with the scandals involving Bill Frist,# Randy `Duke’ Cunningham,# Ted Stevens’ $315 million `Bridge to Nowhere,”# the bankruptcy bill (brought to you by MBNA),# and frankly, too many examples of influence-peddling to mention, it appears that Congress has become little more than a bazaar, and the only way you can get any action out of your Congressman is to pay a Jack Abramoff to tender the requisite bribe.  For average citizens on the outside looking in, who can’t get needed help because the Beauprez Congress is so blatantly on the take, the notion that you have been representing “us” often appears risible.

          Still, the most egregious example of corporate corruption overwhelming common sense in the Beauprez Congress is in the Medicare prescription drug program — which specifically prohibits the federal government from negotiating price discounts with the drug companies,# which you voted for.#  Worse yet, you even voted to prevent financially strapped seniors from reimporting prescription drugs from Canada.# According to a study by the Boston University School of Public Health, Bob Beauprez’ vision of Medicare reform will result in $139 billion (a 38% increase) in windfall profits for Big Pharma — stolen right from the pockets of our struggling seniors!#
        ————————————————
        I’m still waiting for some evidence of your ability to reason, Bob.
        ==================================================

    2. It looks like a good layout but, I’m trying to figure out what it has to offer that’s any different from the news feeds on ColoradoConfidential or several others?

  9. I read a comment on Mondays open thread from Parsing in response to a thread by tiltawhirl that this site was not an appropriate site to voicing his concerns. I disagree. I know of whirls efforts and I commend him on them.  His is a worthy cause.  His cause is just the tip of the iceberg though.  This is a political issue as is the state of the family court system within Colorado which is in need of much reform.  40% of litigation in Colorado is in the family courts. That alone should signal that greater oversight is needed. The need for reform can just be seen in the fact that 90 to 93% of divorces and custody cases end in the women getting custody-this just reaks of bias or curruption within the system.  The divorce/custody racket needs exposure and the light of day.  The fact that there seems to be so much ignorance to the state of affairs in regard to the family court system on this site-screams that this is the right place to have a discussion about it.

    To cdsmith-you may consider us as the same entity if you like and it makes your mind at rest, but believe me we are all distinct individuals and we have an important issue which should be heard and discussed.

  10. Oh what a difference six months has made?…or has it?

    It’s been almost that long since the American public in November sent a message to Washington (DC) that they were fed up with the Bush et al war they lied the American people into.  Both parties went into damage control mode via their favorite conduit ‘the mainstream media’ after the election down playing the significance of the vote. 

    I posted on this board at that time that the Donkeycrats would do NOTHING to stop the phony war let alone start impeachment hearings on Dur Fuhrer Bush.  To my amazement, the government worshiping so called ‘Democrats’ posted in an almost a panic fashion “…don’t impeach Bush…work with him instead.”  Which is really strange when you consider had the Bush cabal been booted out of DC that would have put Ms. Israel first, second and thrid /  America last neoCon in liberial’s clothing AIPAC whore Pelosi into the driver seat.

    It would give me much more pleasure to say I told you so, that what I said would happen after the election happened.  However, your dog could have predicted that the Donkycrat crooks would send a message back to the American people…”screw you!”  No matter how both parties tried to claim on national TV and radio that the November turnout wasn’t an anti-war vote the polls said otherwise.

    So how did the Donkcrats ‘work with’ Bush? They got real tough and voted for his surge.  They really put a monkey wrench in his plans by voting to increase war funding by 100 billion! 

    Yes, I hear you Donkey government worshipers out there…What about the April 1, 2008 withdraw deadline??????!!!!!!!!!  After looking like the military industrial complex whores the Donkeys are and always (historically) have been, of course they have to appear (specially at this point) to be putting the ‘heat’ on Dur Fuhrer.  Good luck trying to get the majority of us to buy this next phony WWF troop withdraw wrestling match.  All I can say to you is April Fools!

    2. As a Republican who would happily pay Bush’s plane fare to the Hague if you could get him into court on war crimes charges, I have to concur.  AIPAC dictates our foreign policy, but they bought it fair and square — no one expected the Donks to just pull out of this fiasco.  Getting out of a war zone is a lot harder than getting in.

  11. We’re seeing a Publican groundswell attempting to block having Condi back under oath to explain the nexus between the treasonous outing of the undercover and covert agent Valeried Plame Wilson and the infamous POTUS State of the Union claim that Iraq was seeking yellowcake uranium in Niger.

    Simple question….. Why try to block the subpoena, if there is nothing to hide?

    Christ must be crying seeing what this administration has done to the world.

  12. Giuliani warns of `new 9/11.’ In a stunning politicization of national security, Rudy Giuliani said today that “if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, America will be at risk for another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001. But if a Republican is elected, he said, especially if it is him, terrorist attacks can be anticipated and stopped.”

    He should be kicked off of every stage he’s tries to climb on. Fuckin asshole.

    1. …is that millions of voters will believe it!

      (Overlooking the obvious fact that the only “invasion” of America in our lifetimes happened under a Republican watch which, by all reasonable investigation, just let it happen.)

      Invasions that I can think of:

      The War of 1812 – Madison did not suspend Habeus Corpus even though the British burned Washington.

      Confederate States of America – Yet, in a sense, they were “us.”

      Pancho Villa in 1915 or so – a militia, not army

      Pearl Harbor – technically not the USA, a territory

      9/11 – Not an army nor a militia. Only one ID’d with a date!

      1. You’re wrong to say Pearl harbor was “not the USA, a territory.”  You don’t have to be a state to be part of the U.S.A.  Colorado was a territory before becoming a state but we were still part of the U.S. 

        1. Just kidding, but I did choose to throw that in there to stir the waters. 

          More importantly, I’ve known Pearl Harbor survivors.  I don’t think it matters where the anchor was that Sunday AM.

    2. I didn’t really think I’d end up voting for Giuliani if he got the nomination but I was willing to consider it til now. But this question-the-opponent’s-patriotism rhetoric is beyond the pale.

    3. Did he actually say that?  I read that it was being attributed to him but that it’s not his quote.

      I’m not saying I’m not wrong, just checking…

        1. Here’s the quote:

          “If a Democrat is elected president in 2008, America will be at risk for another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001… Never ever again will this country ever be on defense waiting for (terrorists) to attack us if I have anything to say about it. And make no mistake, the Democrats want to put us back on defense!”

          I know you feel the opposite, but I have to say that based on policy, I agree with him.  The question is how to best stay on offense, and this policeman-thing in Iraq probably ain’t it.

          1. in the broad sense – we have to keep up our vigilance and Iraq wasn’t the place to go fighting (although we’ve made it that way). Since we’re stuck there for it makes it hard to go on the offensive elsewhere.

            BTW, I think we’ve been victorious so far in the war on terror, at least as far as homeland attacks and al Quada go. I know that there are still a whole lot of terrorist out there, and at some point we’re going to have to accept that there always will be. But as long as we can continue to disrupt networks and target training facilities we ought not experience anything on the scale of 9/11 again.

            I doubt that restricting civil liberties is the way to go about making us more secure, however – that, to me, is just as costly as the loss of life, destruction of property, and disruption of our economy that 9/11 accomplished. (You didn’t say that, but Giuliani is saying it.)

          2. …with national security with $400 BILLION dollars. Like we’ve squandered in Iraq.  We could have inspected every container coming into this country personally.  We could have increased border security. We could have helped average, poor Arabs who are the ones hating us.

            We could have….. (fill in the blank.)

            $400 BILLION dollars on my grandkid’s tab. 

  14. the spirit that says we can do better. A whole lot better!

    Quoting dancer and choreographer Martha Graham in a letter to dancer and choreographer Agnes DeMille: “There is no satisfaction, what so ever, at any time. There is only a queer, divine dissatisfaction.”

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

49 readers online now

Newsletter

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