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
July 16, 2007 03:31 PM UTC

Monday Open Thread

  • 111 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Much like the Farm Bill, we’re open for business.

Tweet
Share

Comments

111 thoughts on “Monday Open Thread”

  1.   He says that he won’t vote for, let alone support, Rudy Giuliani under any circumstances.  He’s obviously not going with John McCain who limited all of his shameless right wing ass-kissing to Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Fallwell.  Nor has Dobson endorsed the real Christian conservatives in the race:  Brownback and Huckabee.
      Maybe he’s saving himself for Newt Gingrich.

      2. If I had to like a presidential candidate as a friend I’d choose him or Gravel. Guess the media just doesn’t like him for whatever reason.

      1. but there are lots of Republicans (Democrats) who would never vote for a Democrat (Republican)!

        I have my own religious test that helps guide my vote: The less religious, the better. I guess I didn’t get the memo either! 🙂

  2. The Republican power structure in Colorado-Benson, Owen, Allard are all early Romey supporters – this gets little press.  I think dems are beginning to understand that Romey may be the one to beat and hence the Post is publicizing his Morman religion…of course, this may backfire, as Udall is Morman and comes from a historically important Morman and Democratic line…

    i think it is a slow sunday and the post wanted to stir up some infighting…

    My take is the republican flitation with religion has never been about religion, it has been about power

    1. The problem is with the Dobson crowd. Religious progressives tend to seek common ground with other denominations/religions.  Religious conservatives, fundamentalists by definition, seek to exclude heterodox views.

      That’s why Harry Reid or Mark Udall’s faith is not an issue.

      The article is just pointing out the problem the religious right has with Mormons.

      1. No one who will be voting Dem or is open to voting Dem cares about Udall’s religious background.  With any luck the Dobson crowd will just stay home if the R Presidential candidate isn’t the right brand of intolerant, gay-bashing, anti-science, fundamentalist Christian to suit their very specific taste.  That’s what they used to do considering politics too worldly.  The good old days.

      1.   I don’t know if I would play that up.  People will equate that with atheism or more likely, his opponent will misconstrue it to be atheism.

        2. a specific religious affiliation is just not something he has in his official biography. I’m sure he can come up with some nice general statement about faith. 

          It would be so nice if we could all just stop giving the grown-ups in the rest of the western world so much to chuckle about in our silly parochial attitude toward the various detailed magic spiritual formulas American grown-ups take as seriously as 4 year olds take Santa Claus. Somehow I doubt that the definitive answers to the great spiritual mysteries of the universe can be found in any single handy dandy instruction book, with all the other instruction books being crap and it being our job to guess right (door number 2?) or go to hell (so sorry, wrong answer).  I mean, really!

    2.   There was diary posted yesterday re:  net fundraising for first quarter being $29!  Gross was about $36,000 which put him in Betsy Markey territory, but at least Betsy kicked in an additional $25,000 of her own money to show she’s serious about running.

  4.   Newsweek’s poll last week had some interesting numbers.  Despite her high negatives, H.R.C. comes out on top (so to speak) of each of the GOP frontrunners. 
      Ironically, John McCain (whose candidacy is circling the drain) runs the closest race to Hillary, losing to the former First Lady by only five percent (50% to 45%). 
      My personal favorite GOP candidate, Giuliani, loses by seven percent.  And Mitt Romney gets blown out of the water by 15% (55% for H.R.C. to 40% for M.R.).

    1. According to polls, HRC either isn’t electable based on “would you consider voting for HRC” questions, or has about a 2% margin – yet she consistently wins against anyone and everyone the GOP has to throw against her.

      I guess that goes to show just how bad the Republican candidate list is.  Fundraising numbers seem to back that up – the GOP candidates just can’t seem to scare up the cash right now.

      1. John edwards and Obama both poll better than Hillary in a general election, but it doesn’t matter.  What matter’s is how the D polls in 7 states.  Its not about the popular vote its about the electoral vote.

        HRC can maybe turn one small state.  Hillary is about the only thing that can unite the GOP and drive up turnout for conservaative voters. 

        I fully expect the GOP to Corker Obama, but it will work for him in the critical many of those 7 states.

        If electability is the reason to choose a candidate: Hilary is NOT that candidate.

  5. With the death of Lady Bird Johnson, I took some time to read about her and LBJ on Wikipedia.  It occurred to me that LBJ – the male one – was one of several “Except for” presidents.  Men who could have had the mantle of “Great” hung on them……except for.

    Johnson, except for Viet Nam.  What a blunder.

    Nixon, except for Watergate.

    Clinton, except for Monica.

    Bush II could have at least attained “Somewhat mediocre” except for Iraq.

    A serious question:  What made the LBJ’s so involved and concerned with civil rights?  I mean, here are two people who grew up in the Deep South way back in the teens.  What made them different?  The only reference I saw was that LBJ – the male one – taught in a “Mexican school” as part of his college experience and he was deeply moved at their lack of opportunity.  He could have just bought into the common wisdom of “Yes, but they are so lazy..indolent…dishonest….whatever,” but he didn’t.

    After my readings, I had a lot more respect for him (even if he did vote for Taft-Hartley!) 

    1. 1.  I have also heard the schoolteaching experience cited as a pivotal experience–note that LBJ started his career as a teacher, with ideals for individual improvement thru education.
      2.  I have also read that LBJ’s father Sam was a proponent for blacks–there was an incident where he faced down a Klan posse at gunpoint, then stayed up guarding his home all night waiting for retaliation.
      3.  LBJ was at heart a strong populist–he came up in modest circumstances.  His Great Society ideal was essentially an extension of FDR’s New Deal, applied to the underclass rather than the middle class victims of the Great Depression.
      4.  Related to populism, Texas has a historic tradition of progressive politics co-existing and in perpetual tension with the good-old-boy Dixiecrats under one-party Democratic rule. My own parents grew up in rural, Depression-era, Jim Crow Texas cotton country, yet allied themselves with the Civil Rights movement and progressive Dem positions.

      There was a time when I was proud to be from Texas–it seemed to have a live-and-let-live attitude, a big-spirited and can-do people, and an incredibly diverse landscape.  But I haven’t seen that since Bush and the gun-totin’ bible-thumpin’ money-trash yahoos took over.  Maybe someday the pendulum will swing back.

        2. Texas (and have enjoyed explaining to European friends that Texas is regarded by the rest of the U.S. the way the U.S. is regarded by the rest of the world: Texas is Ultra-America!). But, Anne Richards and -what’s his name? The Jewish, cigar-chomping satirical singer and perennial candidate?- are Texans, too. So, maybe Texas is “Ultra-America” in some good ways as well.

      2. ….If that story about his daddy and the KKK is true, that certainly would be informative.  The bio on Lady Bird did say that her father had definite traditional thoughts about the place of blacks, “fetchers of wood.”

        I like your phrase about “the tension.”  Spot on. 

        It seems that I will most likely become a Texas resident – kicking and screaming – sometime in the next few years.  All my kids and g-kids are there.  My ex and I warned them, and not only do they move there, one actually marries – patooey – one of them.

        Jus’ kidding.

        1.   It makes a difference. Give it a chance, other than the right-wingers and real-estate developers crawling everywhere and the hideous climate, you may find it grows on you.  I guarantee, politics is a contact sport down there.

    2. Read the Robert Caro bio on LBJ, “Master of the Senate.”  It explains the long history of contradictions in Johnson’s life on civil rights.  But at the end of the day, he did the right thing.

      1. Noted during LBJ’s presidency, early gotcha journalism: I remember a news magazine, maybe more than one, which featured photos of some dirt poor folks living in some of the Johnson’s rentals in either Alabama or Mississippi.  You’d have to be pretty old to remember this.

        1. …old enough. 

          Probably in the same vein as Washington and Jefferson could not realistically buck the traditions and the laws of the time.

          At least LBJ ultimately did the right thing.

          1. LBJ eventually did the right thing in regard to civil rights.  Medicare as well.  In fact, the guy really refined a lot of the New Deal for the 20th Century.  Remember the scandal when he appointed Abe Fortas?  Remember what a great Supreme Court Justice Fortas tuned out to be?

      2. I think a lot of it was the LBJ grew up poor. Really, really poor. He also grew up in the part of Texas where there were very few blacks so he was not brought up in the Jim Crow culture per-se.

        Add in the experience of his father as both a politician and businessman and that had to have had some positive effect on him.

        He clearly wanted to end poverty and numerous times in his carear did the right thing on that. But on Vietnam he went against his instincts and that destroyed him.

        1.   As a young man, LBJ was strongly influenced by the struggle against Nazi totalitarianism in WWII. For a long time I think he bought into the rationale of hawks in his administration and military who told him that Nam was essential to the struggle against Soviet totalitarianism.  And similar to his idealism about the Great Society, he probably strongly idealized his role as protector of freedom in Nam.  All this despite his tremendous skills as a pragmatic and hard-hosed politician.

            One big difference about LBJ in Nam was that he truly suffered for knowing the destruction the war was causing to the US, and ultimately took responsibility for his actions by declining to run for re-election. 

            A potentially great, but tragically flawed president.

          1. I recall that sometimes he couldn’t sleep and in the middle of the night go downstairs to the situation room.  His first concernwas always how many have died since he was last there.

            “More pretzels, Condi.”

    3. one of these things is not like the other

      1. an unncessary war war that killed tens of thousands of american’s
      2. a criminal conspiracy that reached directly to the president
      3. an extra-marital affair between consenting adults
      4. a war of choice that has killed thousands of americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi’s

  6. Ed Perlmutter and John Salazar are raising money like they want to stay in Washington.

    Lamborn was denied a seat on the Armed Services Committee after saying it was promised to him. Lamborn is clearly disliked by his Republican colleagues and could face a stiff primary challenge. 

  7. That’s Mitt’s new ad, “Ocean.”  It comes out days before Mitt makes his appearance in Colorado–the bulwark of evangelical politics in America.  Home to Young Life, Focus on the Family, as well as a whole host of other impactful evangelical groups and pastors, convincing Coloradans of faith that he has the conservative values to lead America will be crucial for Mitt to win not just this state–but the whole country.

    You’ll see a lot of hit pieces like you saw in the Post today.  They’re trying to create a Mormon wedge between evangelical leaders and the Romney campaign that really doesn’t exist.  There are a host of conservative Christian leaders who have pledged support for a Mormon–as long as he has the right values to lead the country.

    Mitt’s new ad hits the evangelical sweet spot.  When push comes to shove, evangelicals are deeply concerned about our culture and our place in the world.  It is a terribly sophisticated group that will gladly vote for a Mormon or a Jew or anyone else that has the prowess to solve big issues like a degraded culture.

    What most of the left won’t believe is that evangelicals look at politics not as a way to push their faith into the public square–but, rather, to use their faith as a way of cleaning up a culture that the vast majority of Americans see as sick and depraved.

    For Mitt, Colorado isn’t only important because it’s a state he should–and must–win, but also because of our enormous evangelical presence.

    He won me and many other evangelicals over.  Afer this ad and his visit this week–there will many more who hop aboard the Romney Dreamboat.

    1. I think this ad, frankly, taps into something rather bipartisan.  By focusing on the more general cultural problems (i.e. sex and violence aimed at kids) and staying away from any overt religious overtones, it has a chance to really resonate with a big chunk of the middle.  Look, there’s a real desire out there to be able to sit down and watch TV with your ten year old kid and not have every other joke be full of sexual innuendo.  You don’t have to be a prude or a evangelical Christian conservative to relate to this ad. 

      1. I didn’t mean to insinuate that this was a bone thrown to evbangelicals.  This is an issue where evangelicals often find themselves in the leadership on–but it is a concern shared by the vast majority of Americans.  Mitt is seeking a campaign that will bring Americans of all political stripes together around core concers: national security, the economy, and values.  His innovative health care reform in Massachusetts was only one more example of his willingness to reach across the aisle to find smart solutions to tough problems.

        2. He’s running away from the middle and flipping on every issue at every turn. How can you honestly say he’s trying to bring America together?

        3. Presidents don’t have any effect on “family” values.  You folks supported Bush and are TV, movies or the culture in general any more elevated now than the day before he took office?  Beside,The whole idea that conservatives have superior family values to liberals is completely unsupported by any objective evidence. Divorce rates are actually higher in the bible belt and lower in the blue northeastern state which means you’ve got nothing on liberals as far as intact families are concerned.  If people hadn’t been willing to vote for the supremely under-qualified, incurious stubborn fool we now have as our President just because he seemed like a nice Christian and a guy you’d be comfy having a beer with (except for the fact that the former drunk doesn’t actually HAVE beers, or so he says) we wouldn’t be living under the most incompetent and corrupt administration this nation has ever seen, embroiled in a war that started as the worst strategic error of the age, completely unnecessary, and has been headed downhill ever since due to a truly spectacular level of stupidity and graft.

    2. Funny he cares about violence in video games but doesn’t seem to care enough to mention the people dying in Iraq or Darfur right now due to violence. The water at the end of the commercial should have been blood red.

            1. Grand Theft Auto is a series of video games where you get to generally act like an unrestrained criminal and feel good about it.  Not quite as asocial as Hitman, but working on it.

              The problem in Darfur is multi-headed; the simplest start we could get on the matter is flying a no-fly zone over the area; that would deny critical air support that the militias have been using.  Of course, it would help if we had some actual credibility on the international scene, but we seem to have squandered that with our fine rendering, incarceration, and torture policies.  That and a year-plus of John Bolton as Ambassador to the UN will do that.

              1. I know what GTA is.

                So, you’ve set up a perfect situation where you can bitch all you want about Darfur, and do nothing about it because of a ‘credibility’ issue.

                Now THAT’s leadership!

                I missed the memo on the “torture” policy, too.  Nice talking point.  Maybe you should ask some of the Christian tribesman in Darfur about “torture” and “credibility”.

                1. Maybe I missed something, but the Darfur crisis is between African and Arabic Muslims, last I checked.  More, it’s about native landowners vs. power brokers.

                  I’m sorry if you missed the bit where the United States has crossed the line between interrogation and torture.  It’s been in the news a bit over the past couple of years – perhaps you need to do some catch-up?

            2. It is interesting that you are trying to turn this around on me. I’m not even suggesting that Romney have the perfect solution for Darfur at this point in his campaign. He certainly didn’t explain in his commercial how he would solve violence on television. I just expect someone who is “concerned” about violence in video games and on T.V. to also be “concerned” about REAL violence across the globe. That’s all he had to say. Not that he had all the answers at the moment. Although he better develop them before too long if he wants to be a serious contender to lead the most powerful country in the world.

              Oh, and on a different note…doesn’t this commercial take kind of the “nanny” approach that so many conservatives despise? Isn’t it up to individuals what they let their children watch and play?

    3. “They’re trying to create a Mormon wedge between evangelical leaders and the Romney campaign that really doesn’t exist.”

      Someone better clue in Dr. Dobson, then.

      Although I guess none of it really matters since the Pope made it clear than none of you but the Catholics get admitted to the final dance anyway.

      I’d like to hear you expand on how American evangelicals constitute a “terribly sophisticated group.”  Most analysts have instead used them as the canonical example of single-issue voting.

        1. They did a major study on it about two years ago and it showed that evangelicals make more money and have a higher level of education than the populace at large.  Your average evangelical family is more likely to be driving an SUV, living in the suburbs, working at a high tech or major business firm.  The world has changed and Christians have changed along with it.

          1. OK, you and the pollsters are probably correct if you narrow down the definition.  I’m sweeping with a broad brush.  The Bible Belt, rural areas, and low education and incomes go pretty much hand in hand.  Still.

            Hey, and ditch the SUV’s already.  Just what America and the world doesn’t need.

            1. Parsing, that’s a fine distinction.  Although even in the south, evangelicals have rising income and education levels, you’re right that, by and large, they are still lower than the national aggregate.

              But what a lot of folks are missing is that the ground zero for evangelical America is moving away from the south and more to suburban and exurban parts of the midwest and west–especially Colorado and Ohio.  The average evangelical is no longer the slow-talking goober with straw hanging out of his mouth (and, of course, it never was =) 

              Douglas County and places like it are probably a much closer example of Evangelical, USA than, say, Berea, Kentucky.  You’ve even seen it here in Colorado.  In the 1990s when FoF came out here, it wasn’t just Jim and the boys.  Colorado experienced a major influx of large, successful, young evangelical families across the state–though mainly in COS and across the Denver metro area.

              I would submit that Colorado represents the best in evangelicalism in America and while Alabama and Tennessee and places like that are still the backbone of social conservatism in the country–the center of gravity is shifting to the midwest and west.

              2. My grandfather graduated from Berea College!  He grew up in a German Pennsylvania community, however.  He ran the YMCA in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil from 1917-1949, doing what he considered God’s work instead of the banking career he had in hand.  He was very ecumenical.

                I understand what you are saying, and I think you understand me.  If “The New Evangelism” is HQ’d in CS, where would the movement be w/o CS?  Seriously.

                1. And I actually think Berea is one of the neater cities you’ll find.  Kentucky is a wildly historical state (and the Dems have about a 20 point registration advantage, too).  Very pretty, too.  I think my great-grandfather lived in Berea–so, Parsing, you and I may have some history.

                  :0

    4. I know in 2004, James Dobson specifically excluded Mormons from speaking in his “National Day of Prayer.”  (The doctrinal issue was over Mormons’ literal interpretation of the Holy Trinity.  Believing the Father, Spirit, and Holy Ghost to be  three different divine entities means you’re not really Christian, not to mention the Mormon belief that there is a Mrs. God in Heaven to share duties with Him.)

      Has Dobson’s position changed?

      1. Listen, religious tests are explicitly verboten by the Constitution.  I’m with Richard Land and Chuck Colson on this–Mitt’s religious may be a boondoggle, but his politics aren’t.  And, since we’re voting for president, not pope, that’s all that matters.

        James Dobson is right.  Mormon beliefs are simply un-Christian and I would never qualify them as such.  But that doesn’t mean that a Mormon can’t be a great president.  I’m voting for Mitt for president–not Pastor in Chief. 

        Again, evangelicals are much more sophisticated than they get credit for being.  And you’ll lose election after election–at least in the red states–if the Dems keep the attitude that we’re all a bunch of Jello-eating hicks out here in the heartland. 

        1. “Listen, religious tests are explicitly verboten by the Constitution.”

          And you know what–I don’t like marshmallows.  Not at all!

          If you get around to reading my comment and have something to offer that relates to it in some plausible way, I’ll be here.

          1. We’re electing a president here–not a pope.  That means that politics and values matter much more than theology.  Sorry, but if you think a theological rift necessary equates to a political rift, you’re not understanding evangelical politics.  I don’t care about Mitt’s theology, I care about his values.  And I’m probably not alone in that consideration.  In fact, I’m quite sure Dr. Dobson is right there with me.

            2. You think Colorado is rich in evangelical voters and thus constitutes a do-or-die bellwether state for Romney.

              Yet the evangelical Christians in this state are largely concentrated in Dr. James Dobson’s backyard.  He’s not the only game in Colorado Springs, but it’s wrong to downplay his influence there.

              And thus Dobson’s public statements about Romney and about Mormonism in general would seem to be highly germane to the argument you advance here.  His aspersions against John Kerry in this vein certainly had some influence.

              But all we’ve heard recently is James Dobson saying late last year that he was doubtful Christians could vote for a Mormon as President.  But that doesn’t fit your wishful thinking, so for once we get to see the spectacle of Doctor Dobson has Godlike Qualities saying James Dobson doesn’t matter.

              (And why is it that you attach credibility to Mitt’s current set of “values,” given that several of them are the opposite of what he said while governing Massachusetts?)

              1. As it happens, there are influential evangelical leaders and communities throughout the Front Range.  Suburban Denver is every bit as socially conservative as Colorado Springs–it’s just that folks in the suburbs tend to be much more fiscally moderate and therefore not as reliably Republican come election time.  Mitt’s innovate message on health care will resonate every bit as much with suburban Denver voters as his ideas on family values.  Most of Colorado’s largest and most conservative churches happen to be throughout the metro area and in the Loveland area.

                All of that is to say that it isn’t just Colorado Springs–but a whole lot of other parts of the state–that have to sign onto a Mormon candidacy.

                As far as James Dobson goes, I haven’t seen the whole context of that remark, so I can’t really explain it.  All I can say is that Mitt has engendered a tight relationship with the evangelical community here and nationally through his hard work on marriage and life issues while governor of Massachusetts.

                He’s rising in the polls with the help of moderates and social conservatives alike.  The flip-flop meme isn’t sticking.

                1. …Mitt is the one for Dems to worry about.  At the end of the day – and the convention – the R’s will not pick another Goldwater, but someone youngish and accomplished. And not a serial marry-er.

                  I heard a guy on the radio yesterday – too late to hear who it was – and he had been fairly close to Mitt for many years.  He spoke well of him, but had trouble with Mitt’s change of heart on those famous topics.  As he said, it’s not that he has come to a different perspective, which we overall call “growth”, but that he’s denying he was anything but what he says he is now.

                2. Suburban denver is NOT as socially conservative as CS.  the GOP in in the suburbs is chamber of commerce not preacher.  DougCo is a GOP stronghold yes (but alot of that is tax policy), but arap and jeff go both ways and adams is old time democratic party.

                  Mitt doesn’t even talk about healthcare (or anything else that might be construed as moderate) as he runs to the right.

                  Flip Flopping doesn’t stick?  Keep telling yourself that.  Irrational hope seems to be the only thing the GOP has going for it right now.

                    2. ..you must live in the part of jeffco and arapahoe that is represented by a far-right wing ideologue in Congress. Oh, wait…. errrr

                      Face it Dobby, you are completely off base about suburban denver. Comparing suburban Denver to Co Springs does not come close to passing the “laugh” test. Go look at the results of actual elections in those counties. I don’t care how many fundie’s you know in suburban Denver, that area does not come close to voting how Co Springs does.

                    3. You must have missed the part where I said that because of its fiscal moderate-ness the ‘burbs go either way come election time.  Denver’s suburbs are filled with lots and lots of evangelical families I’ve talked about–and it is these suburbs which are culturally very conservative.  It reminds me a lot of the Springs.

                      But the suburbs tend to run the other way from things like TABOR.  Guys like Bill Ritter really hit the suburban sweet spot.  Pro-life, ex-missionary, blah, blah, blah

                    4. but they don’t vote that way.

                      Makes as much sense as anything else you’ve said here.

                    5. So the Denver suburbs are “filled” with Evangelicals. But these Evangelicals don’t actually vote like other Evangelicals and in fact routinely elect Democrats and vote with moderates on things like tax issues. Yet these suburbs remind you of Co Springs.

                      Whatever you say Dobby

                    6. Suburban Denver voters are socially conservative/fiscally moderate.  So, if you’re a Democrat and you can articulate a culturally conservative message about faith and families and the rest of it, while still talking kitchen table stuff like health care, you can win!

                      Here’s a column by Frank Luntz about how the GOP can make a comeback next year:

                      http://www.latimes.c…

                      What’s ironic is that the Dems have soared into power here using the exact same strategy Luntz recommends for the GOP.  He believes that a culturally conservative message mixed with happy talk about economic opportunity and a helpful, efficient government is a winning message.  In Colorado, that would certainly be true.

                    7. Luntz (I respect his ability) is advocating this strategy for Ohio–I agree.  Denver suburbs are nothing, repeat nothing, like Ohio. 

                      And your idea “happy talk about economic opportunity and a helpful, efficient government” can be adopted by the GOP is LAUGHABLE. 

                      It is fundamental to GOP ideaology that government is the problem. 

                      Even if the GOP said we want to help americans who would believe them?

                      After Katrina, Iraq, and oil company pay-offs do you seriously believe that they can sell “happy talk”?

                      The performance of the government over the last 6 years, the cronyism and the corrupt politization of government agencies is a reflection of the GOP view that government is bad. 

                      Why bother puting competent people in important jobs if you think the government doesn’t do anything important anyway.

                    8. I’ll only comment on your point about Ohio and suburban Denver.  I actually think they are quite similar.  They both are rather socially conservative and white-bread middle American.  And both are very topsy-turvy politically.  No comparison is exact–but Ohio and suburban Denver are about as good as you’re going to get.

                  2.   8 years ago, Arapahoe Dems held two out of eight state House seats, and only one state Senate seat.  Today, the Dems hold four House seats and two Senate seats. 
                      They also hold two out of the five county commissioner seats where ten years ago, the Dems held exactly zero commissioner seats.
                      It’s one hell of a conservative Republican community, and it’s growing by leaps and bounds!

                    1. I never said the suburbs were raving conservative Republican.  I just said that they are great for evangelicals and rather socially conservative.  Electorally, you know as well as I, the ‘burbs are finicky. Ref. I was lost in the ‘burbs and Ritter won in the ‘burbs.  To win suburban Denver you have to articulate a culturally conservative message.  And history is on my side.

        2. While I appreciate your support of Romney despite your differences in beliefs, I think it’s total crap for anyone to go around and make judgements as to who is or isn’t Christian. 

          It disgusts me everytime I hear someone say that Mormons aren’t Christian.

      2. Nothing new, vigorous differences in beliefs since JC hisself died.  The question was “settled” in 325 at the council of Niceia (sp) .  Unfortunately, that pesky Arian heresy mosquito has never gone away. 

        Trinitarian Christianity makes no sense to me, and when pushed into a corner by its supporters, they always fall back on a “Trust me” position.

    5. From a column at Slate:

      The Romney ad is awash with ironies, but the biggest come from Peggy Noonan herself. The 1999 op-ed on which the ad is based gives social conservatives plenty of reasons to run screaming. It begins with a quote from Rosie O’Donnell: “I know it’s an amendment. I know it’s in the Constitution. But you know what? Enough is enough.” O’Donnell was calling for a ban on gun ownership; Noonan makes no effort to rebut her. Instead, Noonan writes, “It occurs to me at the moment that a gun and a Bible have a few things in common. Both are small, black, have an immediate heft and are dangerous—the first to life, the second to the culture of death.”

      http://www.slate.com…

  9.   And he is apparently denying the report from the Canal Street Madam in N.O. that he visited her place of business, paying $300/hour for services rendered.  (At least he’s got a more realistic view of the economics of the commercial sex industry and is willing to pay “market price,” unlike John McCain’s campaign advisor in Florida w/ his $20 bill.)
      Vitter did not deny the report that he’s on the D.C. escort service phone list, but reiterated that he’s worked through this with his wife who has forgiven him.
      Wife was at his side during today’s press conference.  No word on whether all of his parts are still attached to his body…..

      2. When was the last time that *anyone* of a political bent who went over to Iraq got anything more than the Green Zone Amusement Park Tour?  What good is visiting Iraq – excepting troop morale visitations – when you won’t see the “real” Iraq and the troops that you get to talk to have all been ordered to smile and say things are going Just Fine, Thank You?  (Not that that latter always works as the Administration wants it to…)  Asking what you asked is a red herring; it means nothing to the argument.

        Sen. Webb is, I think, quite well-qualified to judge the situation in Iraq – probably better qualified than any other person in Congress right now with the possible exception of Rep. Sestak.

          1. Look, if you want just agree with me and then dispute Webb’s qualifications because he hasn’t been on the PR tour, I can’t help you.  Logic has apparently escaped you in your response.

            And yes, Petraeus was confirmed without controversy; he wrote the bloody manual on counter-insurgency – I’d have voted for him.  Unfortunately, as a military officer you do what your superiors tell you to do.  Petraeus isn’t even following his own handbook, and he’s endorsing moves counter to those that he knows works.  It’s the same trap Colin Powell fell into.  I give him another 6 months to a year, then he retires like every other general we’ve gone through in the past 4 years – completely disillusioned and unhappy with this Administration.

          2. So let me get this right.  Dems like Webb not only have to serve admirably in Vietnam in combat, but now they have to make pointless visits to Iraq in order to have an opinion ?

            Sorry that we can’t all meet the rigorous wartime standards the chickenhawks hold us up to.

  11. What I find intriguing, is that Dobson is anti-Rommey when the rest of the Colorado republican establishment is for him. What is Dobson trying to do? Or, are the repubs who want to win in 2008, first kicking  ole Bush off the boat..and now are going to dump Dobson.  going run lean and mean….

    And how does Dobson survive, if he backs the wrong candidate? Can his movement survive if the politicans desert him? Where will his money come from after 2008? Dobson is the person to examine, not Romney.  Romeny is a any which way the wind blows repub and will get the nomination, no doubt.  He has so much money.

    As for LBJ, he predicted the Dems would lose the South for a “generation” when they backed civil rights.  Little did he realize it would be for much longer.  An extraordinarily complicated man, I remember watching his speech, March 31, 1968 and knew he was not going to run before he announced it…something so profoundly sad in the man…..that was days before MLK was killed and three months before RFK was murdered.  Those were horrific times; but this country was governed by real men.  We may never see their like again.

    1. It might be time to open up a winter clothing store in Hell.

      If Richard Mellon-Scaife is advocating against Republicans of *any* stripe – and the Pittsburgh paper is his hometown rag – then you know there’s trouble in Permanent Republican Majority Land.

      1. Yeah, pretty amazing, isn’t it?  SCAIFE, for God’s sake.

        Do you think Barney will pee on his leg soon?  I’d love to see that on Youtube!

        When I was growing up and I would look on the bad and forgettable presidents that our ancestors elected, I NEVER would have thought that I would live (so far) through the worst presidency ever.  Twice.

        1. The war was over. Nixon was gone. The Constitution worked. It was either going to be Carter or Ford, both decent men.  We rang the gd bells and said “happy 200 years to us.”  I thought we were home free….

          Except, of course, for the cold war….but that was kinda comfortable by then…we all knew the rules…looked like MAD was a good defense for everybody….

          hell…people even got married and had kids….

          And wasn’t that the year georgie porgie ran for something in Texas and lost?

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

46 readers online now

Newsletter

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