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

60%

40%

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
June 20, 2007 03:21 PM UTC

Wednesday Open Thread

  • 77 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“The GOP’s progress during the last four decades is a stunning political achievement. But it is also a cautionary tale of what happens to a dominant party – in this case, the Democrat Party – when its thinking becomes ossified; when its energy begins to drain; when an entitlement mentality takes over; and when political power becomes an end in itself rather than a means to achieve the common goal.”

–Karl Rove

Tweet
Share

Comments

77 thoughts on “Wednesday Open Thread”

    2. Ok, people are starting to look closely at Fred Thompson and with that he’s no longer the golden boy. So now it’s Bloomberg. But once people start looking at him closely, he’ll lose a lot of his allure too.

      Love or hate Hillary – people know her. We’re not going to have more details that change people’s views. Same with Gore.

      1. Sorry, but no.  You can’t post about Boulder politics and national politics in the same thread and maintain any semblance of credibility.  I say this to you as someone born and raised in Boulder, and with a smile on my face.  Cheers.

        I really don’t see Gore as a factor in ’08 at all.  Do you really think so?

        BTW, Thompson is running second in most GOP polls, and he hasn’t even declared yet.  I hope the Dems continue underestimating him.

        1. Really? We shouldn’t underestimate corporate-lobbyist Fred Thompson? I was thinking about this yesterday and this looks like an excellent opportunity to ask the question – what does Fred Thompson stand for? Thus far all we have heard from him are boiler-plate Republican platitudes. What are his bold plans domestically? What do we do in Iraq?

          I find his ring kissing of Margaret Thatcher to be pathetic. Almost as pathetic as his rented red pickup.

          1. Being a left-leaning Dem, you probably would think that about him.  You’re not supposed to like him.  Now, you’d better hope the group that made up the ‘Reagan Democrats’ doesn’t find him alluring.

            Notice I replied to that thread without insulting you or any Dem candidates. 

            1. what I noticed is that you “answered” without actually answering the question. What does he stand for beyond boiler-plate rhetoric? What are his actual policy positions and solutions? What would make Reagan Democrats like him?

              If you are so sure that we Dems shouldn’t underestimate him it’s not unreasonable for us to ask you why that is.

              1. He’s anti Roe, thinks it should be a States’ rights issue.

                Strong on defense, wants to stay in theater until we can leave a stable Iraq, understands the nature of the threat from militant Islam.

                Keep the Bush tax cuts, shrink the government.

                Pro-Amendment two.

                Anti Labor union.

                Strong borders, no amnesty.

                I don’t expect you to do anything other than ridicule him.  It’s your role, I guess.  But I would expect that you’d be opposite on everything he stands for.

                Love the name-calling right out of the chute, though – “corporate-lobbyist”?  Which national politician received no money from a single corporation?

                  1. I had written down pro-gun first.  He has (hopefully) no thoughts along the lines of the CO amendment 2 abomination.  Sorry.  Too bad there’s no edit feature.  I’d be so much smarter!

                  1. I didn’t realize that being a lobbyist was illegal or precluded one from running for office.

                    Look, “Steve”.  I know you don’t like him.  I hope you continue to write him off.  Have a wonderful day.

                    1. who said anything about lobbying being illegal? I’m just making the point that for a Presidential candidate it’s pretty obviously not the most desirable background.

                      Why so huffy? You’re the one who brought him up. I asked a couple of questions which you sort of answered. If you’re going to be claiming a candidate to be the 2nd coming it seems entirely reasonable that others should be able to question you about the substance of that candidate. It also seems reasonable that you would be versed in said candidates history beyond his work on prime-time TV, but alas…

                    2. I’m just not as smart as you are.  I am only as God made me – simple and dense…

                    3. So what if he hasn’t come out with any specific policy positions?  As has already been mentioned, he isn’t even a declared candidate.  What do you expect from a non-declared candidate?  Even if he was a declared candidate, it is rather early.  I don’t see anyone brow-beating Udall for specifics, and he is a declared candidate.

                    4. This isnt about Udall it is about Thompson. Thompson is apparently second in the polls yet has no policy positions that can be attached to his name except standard boilerplate.

                    5. You use that word a lot…let me explain it to you more clearly.  Why is everybody harping on Thompson for not having any policy positions when he isn’t an announced candidate for an office, while other people who are announced candidates (like Udall…who is an example, not the issue) get no such scrutiny?  Hope we’re on the same page now.

                      You want to know why people like Thompson?  Because Republicans aren’t satisfied with Giuliani, McCain, or Romney.  Why not Huckabee?  Money.  Sure, the guy is funny and stuff but the guy is raising money like he’s running for a Senate seat, not president.  Then comes Thompson…no question that he’s conservative, but not a Gingrich conservative.  He’s been out of Washington for a while, so he can run as an outsider.

                      But remember, he isn’t an announced candidate.  If this was October 2008 and he was our candidate, but didn’t have any positions, sure I could see your point.  Until then, harping on him for being an un-announced candidate without any stances is a “straw-man”

                    6. Thompson has announced he is going to announce. Effectively, that, and the fact he is raising money, means he is a candidate. If you want to argue semantics fine, but it is naive to say that he is not a candidate.

                      Comparing him to Udall is a misnomer for a number of reasons the least of which is the fact that we are talking about two entirely different races. Udall is a sitting member of congress who makes announcements about his policy positions all the time. I highly doubt that his positions are going to change because he is running for senate.

                    7. No one harped on them for a lack of specific stances on issues.  No one questioned why other people were supporting them.  Just because he’s announced later than others doesn’t mean he’s been sitting around writing elaborate policy statements.  To think that he has done so is as naive as to think he isn’t going to announce an official candidacy.

                      But we’re not talking about what he is going to do, we’re talking about why he hasn’t done something already, and the reason for that is he has only announced an exploratory committee, and so no one can have or has had a reasonable expectation that he should have everything in order at this point.  Just like no body has that expectation of any one who has only announced that they’ve formed an exploratory committee, regardless of office.  It wasn’t the case for Udall, Schaffer, Romney, Giuliani, Romanoff, anyone.  It doesn’t matter what office it is, there is NO expectation for a candidate to have specific policy in place at the time of an announcement of an announcement for ANY office.  But I can see your point, Udall has announced solid plans, Thompson just announced that he’s forming an exploratory committee, I would think the pressure would be on someone who has announced solid plans.  In any case, no one should have any expectation that Thompson has come out for any specific policy yet.  If they’re looking for that as a reason for his “popularity”, just read my other post

                    8. I am looking for policy to be the reason behind his popularity, or at least looking for something to understand his popularity. You do make a good point that people are/may not satisfied with the current crop of 12(?) candidates, but with a field that crowded how can people not have someone they already like.

                      Huckabee announced awhile ago. What surprises me is that, to me, he would be the logical choice for conservatives, but he gotten no play whatsoever. Now, along comes Thompson, and he is the de facto conservative. Im befuddled.

                    9. I understand why it’s happening, but at the same time, it’s strange to me how he just came out of nowhere to capture the hearts and minds of conservatives.  I think he could be short lived if he doesn’t raise a TON of cash.

                      Personally, I could go for a Romney/Thompson ticket

                    10. He has the most opportunistic and craven political instincts of any politician I have ever seen.

                      A man who outliberaled Ted Kennedy in Boston recasts himself as a Reagan conservative in 3 years?

                      Huh?

                      If the GOP nominates him, I will take it as a sign of biblical prophecy inerrency, convert to a charismatic christian church and await the coming of our lord, for G-d has abandoned this world for the next.

                      If he can pull off that transformation he is the anti-Christ.

                    11. You write God as G-d? Are you an orthodox jew? I thought there was some loophole that allowed for a person to spell god with the “o” but I can not remember the reasoning.

                    12. My great grandfather was and I picked up the habit from him when I was a boy.  I don’t always do it, but it’s a bit of habit although I mostly do it out of respect and memory. 

                      My personal faith is complex and completely distracting from politics.  If this were Coloradofaith.com I’d jump right in.

                    14. He ran against Kennedy in 1996, and has been getting more and more conservative since then.  In any case, I see your point.

            1. How about part of the corrupt culture of Holywood who married a woman 4 years younger than his daughter.

              How about, considered by his peers in the Senate as one of the laziest people in the senate.

              the GOP has developed a crush on him because their field is weak (why they haven’t gravitated to Mike Huckabee, the likeable conservative, I don’t know). 

              Fred will find the actual going tuff.

              1. Um, again, is it illegal to marry a younger woman?

                Are you sure you want to get into a morality-based pissing contest if a Clinton is your nominee?

                The Ad Hominem attacks on Fred are strong already – he must worry you.

                1. I’m not a HRC fan, but what did she do that was immoral aside fromstand by her man?

                  I’m just recycling GOP attack ads I have seen over the years.

                  By the way you have to make ad hominem attacks against Fred, because he’s never said anything with any policy depth or did anything of substance in his time in the senate.

                  One can not make an intellectual arguement against a void, you have to go by feeling.

                  I don’t care if fred is the nominee, no one short of the risen Christ or the thawed animated corpse of Reagan would help the GOP in 2008.

                  By the way I hear if Jesus does enter the race, he’ll enter as a Democrat.

                    1. farcicality, jocularity perhaps even sarcasm.  Humor my boy, humor.

                2. All of your responses so far have been patronizing and glib. No one is saying that anything he has done is illegal, so why do you keep bringing that up?

                  Let the morality based pissing contest role with Clinton. Lets see we would have both sides of the watergate scandal represented. We have a divorced man with a wife younger than his daughter versus a woman who forgave her husbands infidelity. We have a woman who is a leader in the senate versus a term wonder.

                  Im not worried, Im befuddled. Why do you like Thompson? He has offered nothing, yet is heralded as this great conservative. Why? Is it that he was an actor? He has an astrologist? What?

                  1. that the last great Republican was an actor, I’d bet that that’s Thompson’s appeal. The GOP figures that lightning can strike twice…

                  2. I think I’m trying to point out that Thompson is being targeted for being a politician.  It goes both ways, but it seems to be a prevailing opinion here that Dems aren’t capable of being all of the bad things that define politics.

                    I was responding to snark with snark.  Sorry, I should have tried to stay above it.

              3.   I saw him on ABC with Stephanopolous some months back.  I disagree with him on most every issue BUT he’s bright, articulate, very conservative and sounds sincere. He didn’t sound like he just put down conservative roots in the past couple of years.  I guess he doesn’t have the kind of money he would need to compete with the big boys in the game.

                1. And he hasn’t picked up any big name staffers, he only has a handful of paid people.  Since he wasn’t able to attract anyone serious, he isn’t being taken seriously.

                  I like Huckabee though, and I’d be happy if he were our nominee

                  1. ..hear him speak and meet him last year.  His healthcare policy is brilliant.  He’s not much of a fiscal conservative (tax-wise) but he seems like a really wonderful guy.

                    1. Sweet!  Do you remember what his health policy was (I’m a real nerd for stuff like that…)?

                      I’ve heard things abput him not being a good fiscal conservative, which is too bad.  The republican party really needs to get back to being the party of fiscal restraint

                    2. I remember the most awakening point for me was when he was saying how much money could be saved if we allowed and enabled people to work out on the clock.  He said that ‘We pay people to take a break to smoke, and yet we won’t even allow them time off to do something that lowers the bottom line in so many ways’.

                      He has a very comfortable manner, and I think he really listens well.  Extremely nice.

          3. I still remember him as Tricky Dick’s “defense attorney” as the chief minority counsel in the Senate Select Committee Watergate hearings.

            If he runs, maybe somebody will dredge up some of that old footage.  It’s priceless.

            Then again, not too many people remember Nixon, and the ones he needs in order to get nominated still think Nixon was hounded out of office by Commie Libruls.

        2. No one does, left or right.  For obvious reasons.

          But since he hasn’t firmly renounced running yet as he did in 2004, you can’t count him out yet.  Until that speech, count him as a “definite maybe.”

          Even B. Clinton told a blogger that he can see Gore getting in if – I forget his exact candidate adjective – some folks drop out. There ya have it from the most politically astute man or woman in America, and probably only one Tipper away from being the closest to Al.

          1. Gore getting in would really piss Hillary off, eh?

            His platform is already going to be a big part of the election whether he enters or not.

            1.   ROYALLY…..there’s a lot of bad blood between the two happy power couples of the ’90’s these days. 
                It started when the Lewinsky stuff hit the fan.  Tipper allegedly found Bill’s behavior reprehensible, and pressured Al to put some distance between himself and B.C.
                If you add Gore vs. H.R.C., you’ll see armaggedon!

              1. I really do agree with you, and think Gore and Hillary absolutely hate each other for the reasons above.  Plus, Gore pretty much hates Bill for the whole Lewinsky thing, and it’s impact on Gore being elected Pres (i.e. – it would have been a lot easier without it).  Bill thinks the election was Gore’s to lose, and he did (sort of). 

                It’s kind of like LBJ and the Kennedys.  I’d love to see the smackdown though. If it happens get out the popcorn and lawn chairs.

                1. If Gore had used Bill’s rockstar power in just AR & TN FL wouldn’t have mattered at all.  Gore will never jump in as long as Hillary is dominating the field he doesn’t want to lose to her.  The only he’d jump in is if Obama or Edwards runs away with it and frankly that aint going to happen.

              2. Probably had a lot of guilt for not doing enough to protect young Monica from the risque music that undoubtably drove her to fellatio.

              1. …Al could announce, but Hillary would have to make statements about this, and we know that even though she can act, the smoke coming out of her ears as she speaks would betray her kind words.

                Al wouldn’t have to do or say a damned thing, hence appearing that much more the statesman.

              2. ..they’d run out of food before anyone else got to eat.

                And BBQs are TERRIBLE for carbon emissions.  They’d have to eat ribs dried in the sun.

        3. He’s the flavor of the month and is benefiting from now real critical looks. Once he is put under the microscope many will be disillusioned and start looking again.

          As to Gore, I think he has the second best odds right now for both the Dem primary and the presidency. And I think he would be an incredibly powerful candidate.

          1. He has no money, the stigma of losing in 2000 (I’m starting my stopwatch right now for the snarky comment about his ‘victory’), and the image of being an incredible hypocrite re: Global Warming among most moderates.

            Why would he put himself through it when he can really affect the election and the candidates per the GW debate without killing himself?

            1. Count me among those who don’t think he’ll run, but which moderates think he’s a hypocrite about global warming? I’ve only heard that from confirmed right wingers.

              1. The ‘carbon credit’ portion of the GW debate is completely undermining to his side.  He’s asking all of us to make drastic changes to our lives, but he doesn’t have to because he is able to buy his way out of it to fly around the world and live in a 20,000 square foot mansion. 

            2. I don’t think Gore will run but if he does run I think the 2000 election makes him sympathetic. Considering that he actually won the popular vote and that Bush has been a complete disaster I think Gore’s team could spin that in their favor.

              He doesn’t have an image of being an incredible hypocrite amongst anyone but the wingnuts. His position on global warming looks more and more prescient every day. The overwhelming majority of American’s now recognize that global warming is a serious problem that will require serious solutions. Again, I think his foresight on the issue is a net positive. 

            3. of course Gore has no money – he hasn’t delcared yet.

              You know who else has no money? Fred Thompson.

              the no money thing is a product of their not actually being a campaign for people to, you know, donate to. If Gore delcares I’d imagine he could raise some decent money.

              1. Thompson has started raising money as of June 4th I believe per the exploratory rules.

                He really freaks you out, doesn’t he.  How many voters are going to cast their vote because of his endearing image on “Law and Order”?

              2. We Gore-sters have already lined up potential, big name donors.  Not that this po’ boy is privy to the details, but it’s no secret.  And think of all the money he’s saving while Obama and HC duke it out. 

                “Wake me when it’s October,” he says.

                1. I’ll bet you a friendly steak dinner that Gore isn’t within 1000 miles of the Dem nomination.  I’ll even spot you a VP slot…

                  🙂

                  1. I’m not really sure what you mean.

                    If he chooses not to run, obviously.

                    If he chooses to run, his only real opponent is HC.  Even as a non-candidate, he is always in 2-4th place in straw polls all over the country…..and here.

                    If you have read any interviews with Gore, his intellect is so obvious.  He uses polysyllabic (I love tossing that around) words, has facts and names.  Compare to “Put food on your family” and thousands of cringe worthy statements of the occupier of the White House.  People are tired of the moron and moronic politicians. By that I mean intellect, not positions.

  3. Term limits wil open up quite a few state House and Senate seats next years – just looking at metro-area D’s alone we have Reps. Romanoff, Madden, Garcia, Borodkin, & Marshall, and Sens. Gordon, Hagedorn, Takis and Windels moving on. I’m sure that I’m overlooking many others. Who wants to kick off some speculation on who will fill some of these openings? Shill away!

    1. like, “this quote exactly describes the Bush White House to a Tee” but thought that was pretty obvious. With all Republicans tossing George aside I probably wouldn’t have gotten a single argument in reply.

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

67 readers online now

Newsletter

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