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
July 14, 2007 03:06 PM UTC

Weekend Open Thread

  • 78 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I’m sorry it’s the case, and I’ll work hard to try to elevate it.”

–George W. Bush, 1/29/2007

Tweet
Share

Comments

78 thoughts on “Weekend Open Thread”

  2. In today’s Denver Post, the Republican Party Chair says Dems have no plan on Iraq. 

    Dick, how about you get John Caldera or someone with a TV show to host a debate on this, Dick vs. any Dem with a coherent plan. 

    Any Dem candidate for US Congress in the last election cycle, on the ballot or write-in, will make you eat those words. 

    1. …Goebbels is proud of our fast learner Dickie.

      Of course Dems have a plan……..or plans…..unlike the “throw more blood and money at it” majority Republicans.

      1. Even the most hawkish R must understand that the current operational pace is unsustainable even if the country was willing to continue.  We can not keep 150k+ troops in Iraq for more than a year without breaking the back of the military. 

        Once we decide to leave it will take 20+ months to leave in an operationally safe manner.  So if we decided to leave tommorrow we would still be there for more than a year.

        I know alot of folks disagree, including the eminently reasonable Parsing :), but I’d like to keep troops in Kurdistan for a while, but we have got to start moving troops out today if we want to preserve our warfighters and warfighting capability. 

      2. What is it?  Who came up with it?

        It seems to be “Milk conflict as long as politically expedient.  Do not cut off funding (so as not to be able to be blamed for following chaos), and also do not support any other possible option, including supporting plan of general you unanimously confirmed.”

        Is that about it?

  3. The RMN has a large item on ethanol and focused on two farm families.

    I have for a long time been very concerned about this matter.  I cheer for the farmers having a decent income, but everything else points to being a run away train heading for a cliff of disaster.

    Increased food prices is just a tip of a very big iceberg.

    First, we subsidized corn crops to the tune of almost $10 Billion dollars.  http://farm.ewg.org/…  That’s about $30 for every man, woman, and child in the US.

    Then we pay 51 cents a gallon to ADM, Cargill, and the other Payoff A Congressman companies for every gallon put into gasoline.

    Third, we get less energy in a gallon of ethanol diluted gasoline.

    Fourth, we pay more for out food.

    I’m not even including the distortions to our farming business decisions, the question of net gain or loss on BTU’s http://www.slate.com… , the complexities of transporting and blending ethanol into motor fuels, the increased pesticides and water usage, the pollution from the ethanol plants,,some of which will be using COAL for their fuel, and increased monoculture.

    By any rational measure, ethanol stinks.

    3. which is why I have some “fuzzy logical” reservations about it. To me, the balance of support of v. opposition to ethanol appears out of proportion to the balance of interests involved, and the relative obscurity in the public eye of the arguments against, even in aggressively analytical outlets such as “The News Hour,” is a mystery, given their apparent strength. So, while for the time being I am persuaded by the arguments that Parsing has repeated, I am very eager to hear the best refutations of those arguments proponents may have. Something just doesn’t feel right about such a dud-policy being so widely accepted (implicitly or explicitly), even by those who have much more interest in publicizing its weaknesses than in disregarding it.

      Of course, stranger things have happened (e.g., the near-universal acceptance of the conclusion that Sadam had a well-developed WMD program in place, which also snared me at the time, hedging my reservations about the initial invasion).

      1. We are talking BIG money here.  If you haven’t read the Slate link.  Between what Cargill and ADM throw at congressmen, the influence of the Iowa caucus, and the general “feel good” nature of home energy production, ration takes a distant seat. 

        I didn’t mention the fact that countries like Brazil can produce ethanl very cheaply, but……we have a 54 cent per gallon tariff on said juice.  So much for free trade….

        1. There is a energy differesnce between corn based (US) and Sugar cane based (brazil) ethanol.  Sugar cane is a much more effiecient source.

          On a related topic.  As a general rule if ADM is for it, I am against it.

          2. couldn’t that be grown for fuel in places like Louisiana?  And why does US ethanol have to revolve around corn?  Aren’t there non-food and feed crops that require less water and fertilizer anyway that could be grown in some of our harsher climates?  Just asking.

            1. ….just like so many things in life.

              All biological ethanol production requires two things, sugars and yeasts.  (It can be made from petroleum stock, but that sort of defeats the purpose of ethanol production to reduce petroleum, obviously.)

              Sugars can be in high quantity, such as in sugar cane and beets.  Or, it can be increased by germinating the grains first.  One question I’ve wondered is, are farmers planting sweet corn (more sugar) or regular field corn?

              Cane and beets are good sources for ethanol.  In the US, cane is limited to small regions in LA and south FL.  Both crops require a lot of input of water, culture, and chemicals.  Both crops receive federal subsidies, but nowhere near what corn gets. 

              You may have heard that Brazil now imports oil only for lubricants and chemical feed stock.  Zero for vehicular fuel. Maybe diesel? 

              Cellulosic ethanol is still in pilot projects.  The lignin has to be converted to yeast loving sugars.  The guys that claim than corn based ethanol uses more energy to grow and produce the ethanol from corn say that cellulosic is even worse.

              That’s the way I understand things to be.  Anyone is welcome to correct any misperceptions or knowledge of mine.  I ain’t no certified chemist. 

              (Although I did have a bottle of hooch I was making in my dorm at UF blow up at 3AM once.  I had forgotten to release the pressure that day.)

            2. to why it has to come from corn is that American farmers keep producing more and more and more corn all the time. I recently read The Omnivore’s Dilemma which is a very good read on how much of our food is produced, and it talks a bit about how the corn subsidy policies came about and how, in combination with the tendency of farmers to want to produce the highest yields they can, it’s lead to an enormous glut of corn on the market. So there’s a big need to do something with all this corn, hence the push by ADM and Cargill for ethanol from corn. I don’t know how cheap it is to produce but I know that corn is a lot cheaper than cane sugar (which is why you find high fructose corn syrup in nearly everything these days).

        2. But there are significant differences between the WMD group-think, and the ethanol group think: In the case of WMDs, there was very little information in the public domain to contradict the prevalent official assumptions (regardless of the reasons why). That is a crucial difference.

          I base all of my analyses on underlying dynamics and the question of by what mechanisms things may occur: If it is difficult to reconstruct plausible MECHANISMS by which an alleged phenomenon might have occurred, it is correspondingly difficult to accept the accuracy of the theory being put forward. In the case of the WMDs, it was hard to know that an alternative analysis existed (at the time of the invasion of Iraq), and, yes, in that case the exceedingly cynical would have been right. In the case of ethanol, the alternative analysis are hanging in plain view, and yet even those who have absolutely no incentive to avoid picking them and displaying them with lots of bells and whistles have availed themselves of the opportunity. Some of those entities are completely unaffected by the capital interests who are protected by avoiding the debate. For me to be completely comfortable with the arguments against ethanol, I need to hear a PLAUSIBLE explanation for why this is so. Just citing the incredible amount of money at stake is not enough: It needs to be translated into the mechanisms by which those pecuniary interests constrain those who are unaffected by the influence they wield.

          Even the commercial media, owned by, sponsored by, and actually being expressions of capital interests though they may be, nevertheless thrive on overthrowing the rich and powerful, if they can do so on the cheap. In defiance of the theory of class solidarity, one rich bastard is perfectly happy to sell another down the river for personal gain. So why the hell haven’t they feasted on this story??!! Yes, there are times when pressure comes to bear (e.g., the tobacco industry and “60 Minutes,” though, in the end, “60 Minutes” ran the story). But, even the example I gave (in which there was HUGE money involved), yielded to the evidence, and to the interests of a media machine that thrives on a juicy story.

          Having said all that, I am still tentatively convinced (as I long have been) by the analysis you outlined. I am simply saying that I am also affected by the anomolies surrounding it that, as far as I’m concerned, remained unresolved.

          The bottom line, for me, is this: It is an extremely complex and subtle world. Simple answers are rarely correct, and are ever more suspect as there are ever more unresolved questions associated with them.

        1. If you are opposed to any tax of any kind in any way shape or form, then you’re not a Republican, your not even a Libertarian, your an anarchist. And you can move to Somalia today to see how well that works out.

          The trick is not no taxes, it’s reasonable taxation levels applied in a sensible manner, to both raise the money the government needs and to do so in the most productive manner.

          By that measure taxing carbon output and oil use is an incredibly good way to tax.

          1. Where in my post, or any posts, do you see me opposing all taxation?  Anarchist?  Move to Somalia?  C’mon Buddy, I thought we were friends:)

            I was referring only to the link you provided and the taxes suggested in it.  Is it OK if I “sigh” at the thought of the price of products I use everyday jumping and syphoning off my already taxed income?  How about a whimper, can you give me that?

            1. You can sigh – I was a bit harsh – it has been a terrible weekend.

              —–

              I don’t think that should be additional taxes for no real return. I think the taxes brought in by this should be balanced with debt paydown and tax reduction elsewhere. Or to cover universal health insurance.

              And I think that is the only way it can be sold.

              1. Sorry about your weekend, I hope all goes well this week.

                I understand your point about getting a real return, but I think large gas/petroleum taxes will be a hard sell.  Every time a person fills up they will be reminded of the “#@$%& politicians that raised my taxes”, and you know it isn’t gonna be the R’s pushing this one.  (So I guess I should be encouraging this line of thinking:)

                The next three decades should be very interesting.  The baby boomers will eat through SSI and Medicare, and it is predicted that these two entitlement programs plus Medicaid will eat the entire budget by the year 2040.  This means that even if we maintain the current taxation without adding any new entitlements, we will still have huge budget problems.  Will the next generation of elected officials grow government anyway? Raise taxes? Balance the budget?  Stay tuned. 

                1. with a lot of caveats.

                  Don’t forget, something like 55-65% of our discretionary budget goes to wars, paster, present and future. 

                  Maybe someday the voters will wake up and realize that we don’t need to spend more than the rest of the world combined on this lunacy.  Or having an empire of 700+ bases in 120 countries.

                  I’m not saying hand out the flowers and turn every sword into a plowshare, but we could use a bit of sanity on this matter.

      3. The question is political will, of course.

        The gas tax could be implemented with a flat gas price, adjusted upward annually.  Everyone could plan accordingly.  (One of the huge problems of deregulation generally is the inability to predict costs of household or corporate budgets, but that’s another topic.)

        I believe the cost of health care in US made auto is about double what you said, around $1500.

        China (of course) has been kicking ass in renewable/green energy development.  The city of Shanghai is a pilot project focus. 

        Back in the 90’s “Detroit” said that they would work on hybrids, yassuh.  They didn’t.  So, now that the demand is there, they have to pay Toyota and Honda billions in licensing fees.  Money going to Tokyo, not the local bank.

        The cost of gasoline, taking into account health issues and many of the unobvious costs, runs to $10/gal.  A simple barrels of oil imported from the ME vs. cost of the Iraq war and all the other military costs almost doubles that, as I recall. 

        So, our gasoline is being subsidized to the tune of about $17 a gallon, some of it taxes, some of it health care.

        It’s a complex web, and we haven’t even touched on the politics of the matter.

          1. When I was growing up my Dad used to get letters from the Government asking him to apply for this subsidy on land in East Texas that he never intended to EVER grown anything on. He always laughed and threw it away but I wondered how many others were happily accepting this bogus hand out who shouldn’t have.

    6. Environmentally-conscious people were some of the biggest proponents of ethanol as recently as one year ago. Now, most  turned their backs and ran.

      Most signs point to ethanol being an energy gain, but not the most efficient one possible. You said we lose energy, but didn’t mention we cut back pollution. And the overall energy balance is most likely a gain, just a rather small one.

      Ethanol was something that the U.S. knew how to develop and was therefore developed rapidly. Hence the current backlash and cost/supply ripple effects. Ethanol isn’t all bad, and when presented it was an interesting piece of a possible solution. In fact, there is cutting-edge research that could still make it a great solution.

      As for subsidies…yes the farming industry is subsidized and some of the subsidies create perverse incentives. However, if you are living in America your lifestyle is being subsidized by the government. If you don’t like government subsidies there are a lot of other larger programs you should be crusading against.

        1. Ethanol burns much cleaner than gasoline, the production of ethanol puts the pollution into rural areas instead of congested cities.

          I think.

          1. I am no scientist so I will not make arrogant claims, I am just an ordinary person who has sought to research it to the best of my ability. When a bunch of my acquaintances thought ethanol was the silver bullet i disagreed, just as i disagree with people who want to get rid of it.

            To answer the questions: Scientists at CState researching the energy balance have found it to be a net gain, although a very small gain. It is easy to see, however, that such results can be very subjective depending on research methodology and how you weigh the various inputs. After reading endless articles and studies, my gut feeling is that it is a gain but a very small one. I do not think ADM would invest in it so heavily if they thought it would never be able to compete in the market on its own.

            A side note: one inventor friend of mine says that if we could use water and ethanol in our engines it would burn even cleaner and be more efficient. Apparently they just add gas to things like E85 because otherwise it is grain alcohol and people may drink it, as the power it adds isn’t enormous. A few minor modifications to the car could make this fuel work…but that gets into the less objective realm of wild inventive thought! At any rate, an interesting idea.

            1. my uncle swilling a gas hose.

              Involuntary shudder.

              I’m really happy people like you and parsing study the research and summarize for people like me.  After a scholarly study of this subject I might be swilling the gas hose too.

    8. Having grown up in Iowa among many farm kids, I know that the typical Iowa family farm has largely disappeared. Today there are approximately one-fourth the number of family farms that existed thirty years ago. The emergence of large corporate-owned farms in Iowa, and their lobbying strength, probably best explains our $10 billion dollars in corn (ethanol) subsidies.

      1. But we don’t have subsidies for the corner bookstore taken out by Borders or the corner grocery taken out by King Soopers/Whole Foods.

        I don’t see what is so special about family farms that they are deserving of a subsidy while all other businesses have to make it on their own…

        1. “I don’t see what is so special about family farms that they are deserving of a subsidy while all other businesses have to make it on their own…”

          I agree with you completely.  I’ve never understood farm subsides and why this segment of the population should have their livelyhood ensured by the Federal government. Today, however, it is large “corporate farms” who are the primary beneficiaries of these subsidies and not small families. 

        2. You can survive without the small local shoe shop, book, or clothing store. Take away America’s food supply, which is one of the safest in the world, and we will have problems. Now, the elimination of all subsidies would not end all production and make us starve to death. I simply don’t want our food supply to end up like China’s.

          I am all for the termination of a lot of subsidies, but not all (not that all subsidies ever could be terminated anyway). I believe incentives/subsidies that allow farmers to fork over the initial capital for more efficient equipment such as center pivots should be continued. Price floors and perverse incentives paying farmers for not producing should be phased out. Hope that somewhat clarifies my position.

          1. You can survive without the small local farm (because the big ones will feed us). But take away America’s software industry and we lose our major export product to the rest of the world.

            So we need to subsidize software companies, especially the small ones that have to compete against Microsoft, Oracle, IBM, etc and all of their advantages.

            I await my check 🙂

            1. receive the subsidies too, not just small farms. I am more pro-American farms than anything, I have not begun discriminating based on size although my ancestors might wish otherwise.

              Big farms, family or corporate, have increasing returns to scale just as Microsoft does (not to mention a benefit thanks to their market-controlling practices, which farms can not do as a price-taker). So do we regulate them more, or try to subsidize the smaller companies?

              Oh btw, I wanted to say I appreciate your thoughts on energy posted above. It is a little bit to digest and I therefore don’t want to just fire off a response of my reactions before I give my brain some time to process it. But hopefully soon I will get back to you with some thoughts.

              1. remove the subsidies but only allow food imports from countries with stringent health checks. So EU and Japan – no problem. Chile, etc – could quickly get there. Mexico, could probably hit it without too much problem. And China – forget it as they have no transparency.

    9. This is kind of a combo reply; I posted in response to the parent so there was more than one word per line…

      The current subsidies are inappropriate and poorly applied, that much almost everyone agrees on I think (except for ADM et al).

      Regarding the “fact” that corn ethanol is a net energy loss, and the bit you quoted on cellulosic ethanol below:

      The indicators I’ve seen on cellulosic ethanol are that even the less efficient processes being considered are much more efficient than corn ethanol, and somewhat to much more efficient than cane ethanol or biodiesel production.

      Common ratios that I see are:
      Gas: 500% return on input (i.e. for one gallon of gas input, there are 5 gallons produced…)
      Biodiesel: 430% return on input
      Corn ethanol: 130% return (best estimates)
      Cane ethanol: 800% return
      Cellulosic ethanol: 1600% return (wildly variable…)

      Note – this is production only.  Shipping and support costs, especially for overseas petroleum, lower these figures.

      Cellulosic ethanol is currently in the “Commercial demonstration” stages, with one fully commercial plant in operation.  There are multiple refinement techniques and multiple input sources being tested, which leads to wildly varying numbers on output efficiency.

  5. I don’t want to steal David’s thunder or anything, but this was an interesting video.  I find it, well, strangely reminiscent of the end of Return of the Jedi.  Still pretty cool.  Now all I need to do is learn Arabic.

    A victory party in Ramadi.

      1. If you want to get technical – none.

        Korea (a tie) – ended by Eisenhower (a Republican)
        Vietnam – ended by Nixon
        Iraq I (a tie) – started & ended by Bush I

        Now for wins:
        War of 1812 – ended by Madison (Dem)
        Civil War – ended by Lincoln (Repub)
        WWI – ended by Wilson (Dem)
        WWII – ended by Truman (Dem)

        You want a winner – go Dem

        1. Aside from being wrong about Desert Storm being a tie, given the objective was “Get Saddam out of Kuwait,” you make some good points.

          So long as you ignore the Rest of the Story.  That being
          1) Totally wrecking Reconstruction post-Civil War by being politically invested in defeat in any circumstance.  (Sound familiar?)
          2) Treaty of Versailles.  Need I say more?
          3) Yalta Conference, sacrificing half of Europe to the whims of Stalin, and creating the situation for half a century of nuclear standoff.
          4) Korean War – 50 years later, and we’ve still got a Communist North to worry about – only this time, they’ve got nukes.  (Also note in his Democratic response to the State of the Union, Big Jim Webb tried to use the debacle that Korea has become as a *positive* example of what the Democrats would do to “fix” Iraq.  Brilliant!)
          5) Vietnam War – Congressional Democrats forcing the hand to run away after Nixon achieved the objective victory (i.e., Korea in Vietnam – which was dumb as hell to begin with, but that was another brilliant Democratic strategy), thus handing thousands of South Vietnamese over to the hands of the Communists (or Davy Jones’ Locker), not to mention allowing the great fun the Cambodians had under the Khmer Rouge.

          You want someone to guarantee a big mess you’ll spend half a century or more cleaning up?  Go Dem.

          1. Yalta – Roosevelt and Churchill merely recognized the fait accompli of the Soviets’ sphere of influence encompassing where the Red Army had marched. It’s naive to think they had any other choice.

          2. 1) The Republicans blew reconstruction. But a lot of that was due to the country being tired from a horrific war (more casualties than all other wars combined) and Andrew Johnson doing exactly the wrong thing every step of the way. The thing is though, they tried and put in a lot of effort.

            2) The U.S. fought the punative part of the Treaty of Versailles. But Wilson had a stroke and the Congress wanted to go isolationist. So we did not have the leverage to create a better peace.

            3) The facts on the ground wrote Yalta. The Russians had 300 divisions in Europe and we had maybe 45. We had no choice.

            4) As opposed to what? China had entered the war and we were not going to win a ground war in Korea against China. We could have fought forever but how would that be better than what we have now?

            5) I don’t know what you are driving at here but the idea that we were about to win in Vietnam is pure fantasy. We were on grand new plan 7 or 13 or 23 and that one was “going to work for sure.” But the bottom line is nothing we tried worked.

            War is not simple. And insurgencies cannot be won like WWII and the Civil War were won where we destroyed the economy of our opponent.

            1.   Ironically, George Will was talking yesterday on ABC This Week about Germans in 1918 who were convinced that the Germans were on the verge of winning W.W.I but that the civilian leadership of the country caved and threw away victory.
                Will said that there will be people (mostly in the GOP) who will claim that we threw away total victory in the event we pull out of Iraq.
                I got to thinking whether anyone in this country made a similar claim about victory being right around the corner in Vietnam in 1972-73.  I guess Yokel answered my question.

              1. It was won.  Actual and whole.  At least so long as “winning” was defined prior to the war and in the asinine post-Korean world.  That self-imposed limit of *not* going after “regime change” in the North is ultimately what lost us the war, but a Democratic Congress’ refusal to continue to support the status quo of “victory” certainly was not much help, either.

                1. Never in any of my studies have I heard anyone claim that Vietnam was “won” at any point. What have you read that makes this argument? Serious question.

                2. The American people spoke through their representatives in Congress.

                  They wanted our involvement to end.

                  Period.

                  It’s called democracy.

                  I am so sorry that our military has intelligent but misguided people like you in it.  Enjoy my taxes.

                  1. The Founding Fathers knew as much.  Which is why this isn’t a democracy.  Though the Democratic Congress did indeed commit thousands of South Vietnamese “collaborators” as well as innocent Cambodians to death.

                    Not unlike the Athenian people spoke, calling for the massacre of Melos.  That, too was called democracy.  See point A above.

                    1. …OK, representative democracy.  You know damned well what I meant. 

                      What a rhetorical weasel.

                    2. out of the fox news debate handbook – “oh, the founding fathers didn’t like democracy, that’s why we don’t have one!”

                      I used to respect Yokel but lately the quality of his posts has declined. I don’t think he really knows what he’s talking about here.

                    3. ….not that it comes as any surprise.

                      I agree about Yokel’s posts. HEY YOKEL!  You are obviously a very intelligent man.  But boy, are you brain washed.  Up is down, slavery is freedom, etc.

      2. The celebration after the destruction of the Death Star was fictional. 

        But the celebration after the ousting of AQIZ from Ramadi, that’s fact.

        But, no, the Surge can’t possibly be working. 

        1. …with winning the war. The Japanese won everything for the first 6 months (Yamamoto predicted that they would win for 12 – 18 months). The Germans won everything for the first couple of years.

          Hell, the South won most of the battles in the Civil war for the first 2+ years.

          But none of them won the war. In fact all of them were crushed. Not a negotiated peace – unconditional surrender.

          The U.S. could win any battle in Vietnam. The U.S. can win any battle in Iraq. And we can stay there the next 800 years as the British have done in Ireland.

          But while we can “not lose”, we cannot win.

          1. This isn’t after a big battle.  This is after a full-on victory against the insurgents against the most violent city per capita in Iraq.  The tribes banded together and with the Americans and pushed out AQIZ.  Now there is absolutely nothing going on in that place. 

            I’m not quite seeing how that means we can’t win.  On the contrary, it’s perfect evidence that the intended end state is indeed possible.

            1. It is tough being a soldier.  The men who won WWII had to, within a few years of Victory,  defend the Germans, their former enemy, against the Soviets, their former and victorious allies and comrades in armys.  We have civilian control of the military and soldiers, sailors and marines, have to do what politicans say.  It is in the Constitution and the oath you take is to protect it

              I see Iraq as gang warfare and/or vietnam and/or Colombia…..in the latter, the “good guys” control during the day and the “bad guys” at night.  people ally when and with whom they have to to survive…

              One part of Iraq gets pacificed and  another explodes….to use an old military expression I grew up..TS….

              Suck it up

      1. 3: That’s part of the problem, money that influences politics.

        4: Of course he’s a constituent, we all are.  She’s running for a nationwide office.

  7.   Wonderful news…..Associated Press is reporting that David Vitter’s staff issued a statement today that the Senator will be returning to work tomorrow after his week-long “sabbatical” following the revelation last week that he’s frequented a whore house.
      I am so relieved that we have men like David Vitter working on the “family values agenda” for our country!
      Still no word from Mrs. Vitter on the whole prostitution thing….

    1. When Bill was caught dancing the Monica, Mrs. Vitter said that in the event of her hubby dallying, she was more like Lorena Bobbit.

      Inquiring minds want to know if she fulfilled her threat.

  8. Actually, this apologist is asking for another eight months, but the principle is the same.  How many “another six months and the Iraqi’s will love us forever” do we have to sustain in this tar baby?

    http://www.nytimes.c…

    At least the American public has finally caught on.  Well, most of them.

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!