Post’s Singleton says GOP “dead” in CO, Udall will win big, next CO Attorney General will be Dem, and more!

(Hmm – promoted by Colorado Pols)

I can see the veins bulging out on the necks of conservatives across Colorado when they hear that Denver Post publisher Dean Singleton thinks the Republican Party is "dead in Colorado" and that he doesn't expect to see another Republican president elected in the United States in his lifetime.

If that's not vein-popping enough, Singleton went on to say that Udall will win big in 2014, Colorado's next Attorney General will be a Democrat, and there's no one in the United States of America who won't take his phone call.

That's what Singleton told KHOW's Peter Boyles March 1 during the 6 a.m. hour:

Boyles: The Republican Party, for all intents and purposes, is dead.

Singleton: I think it's in trouble nationally. It's not in trouble locally. I mean, Republicans control 30 State Houses.

Boyles: But I'm talking about in Colorado.

Singleton: I think it's dead in Colorado.

Boyles: I think it's dead in the country.

Singleton: It's not dead–

Boyles: You think we'll ever have another Republican President in our lifetime?

Singleton: Ahh, no.

Boyles: I agree with you.

Singleton: And it really doesn't matter whom the Republicans put up. Republicans, in my view, won't win another presidency in our lifetime.

Listen to Dean Singleton tells Boyles GOP is dead in CO 3-1-2013

Singleton amplified on these thoughts during 7 a.m. hour March 1:

Singleton: The Republican Party is not dead. The Republican Party controls 30 State Houses. Because of redistricting and gerrymandering, Republicans have the chance to hold the House from now on, because most their congressional members come from safe seats. But if you look where their electoral seats are, the Republicans just can’t play at a presidential level. They can’t win in enough states to have enough of the Electoral votes. So I don’t think we will see another Republican President in our lifetime.

Boyles: I don’t either….

Singleton: You’ve to elected state-wide office holders, the Treasurer and the Attorney General. The Attorney General is not running for re-election, so that will go Democratic. .. [BigMedia comment: Colorado’s Secretary of State is also a Republican.]

Boyles: Is it because of the party or is it the candidates they choose?

Singleton: Well, it’s both. The party has shifted so far right that that’s the kind candidates they pick. And they pick candidates that aren’t in the mainstream. And you see the growth of Colordo, and where the growth has come from demographically. I think Colorado is probably a Democratic state from now on.

It is a Democratic state today, and I don’t think it’s going back. I’m an independent. I’ve never registered for either party, and, in fact, the first Democrat I ever I voted for for President was Barack Obama. So I’m not a Democrat, but when you go to vote you, you have the choice of two candidates. And you pick the best candidate if you’re thinking straight…

You’ll see a lot of Republicans trying to get back in the game statewide, but I don’t see it happening. I don’t think it’s necessarily good. I just think it’s what it is… The Republicans don’t have a candidate to run against Udall in 2014. They have nobody to run.

Boyles: It’s a year away.

Singleton: And they don’t have anybody to run against him. Part of it is, nobody wants to run against him, because he’s going to win big. So, why do it?.. I find it sad that in 2014 we won’t have a spirited Senate race. There just won’t be. That’s not the way democracy was supposed to be….

Boyles: Is there anyone who won’t take your phone call?

Singleton: Not that I know of.

Listen: Singleton on Boyles, says Udall will win, discusses prostitution-scandal reporting, explains why CO GOP dead, and more 3-1-13

As Publisher of the Post, and founder of MediaNews, Singleton can air his opinions, and he has strong ones, even tantrum-like explosions, one of which manifested itself in a front-page editorial screed against Bill Ritter and unions.

Still, no one who actually reads The Post would expect Singleton’s pessimism about the Colorado GOP to leak into the news reporting, in the form of reporting that would hurt Republicans.

So please, let's not hear fresh cries of unsubstantiated media bias.

So if I’m a conservative, and I read what Singleton has to say, I wouldn’t get made. I’d take it seriously, thank him for the honesty, and re-subscribe.

77 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. AristotleAristotle says:

    It's too soon to call the POTUS for now, unless Singleton thinks he's going to die within the next couple of years. I can agree with that inasmuch as it proves impossible for a more centered candidate like Christie, who ought to have the full support of the establishment if he ran, to overcome the craziness of the hard right. They were able to ram Romney down their throats, but only after a lot of difficulty. But Christie is already despised by them for telling the truth about the federal response to Sandy.

    So… if there are no other "centrists" (read: as conservative as Reagan) with national support, I guess I can see the Dems having an easier time in 2016 than it appears right now. I'm not loving anyone they're talking about as a POTUS candidate, and I don't know how any of them would fare with the general electorate. But if the GOrP can't nominate someone who's sane (and Romney, for all his problems, at least fit that bill compared to every NotRomney who ran), then the Dem will win, no matter who it is.

  2. DavieDavie says:

    In a sane GOP (an alternate universe in which we do not inhabit), Christie would definitely be the frontrunner.  But in the party's current mindset,  members are in thrall of picking a young "rising star" like Jindal, Rubio or Ryan which will give them false hope for a resurgence.

    Then in 2016 when the next crushing defeat of their "best and brightest" occurs, dismay, anger and discouragement might actually result in the loons getting their butts shoved out the door, and leave room for the adults to finally have a voice again.

    • Urban Snowshoer says:

      On the other had the wingnuts may reach the conclusion that the reason they lost was because they weren't conservative enough. Until the GOP realizes that the reason they have such a hard time competiting nationally is that  party has gotten too conservative, they're not going to fare well.

  3. ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

    Politics is cyclical.  So the GOP isn't dead.  However, the Tancredo-inspired position on immigration that many conservatives hold (one NOT based in conservative principles) brings a saying to mind: "its always darkest right before it goes pitch black".  In other words, we aren't necessarily done with the down part of the cycle yet.  

    • roccoprahn says:

      Elliot, I agree with you.

      People like John Huntsman, his daughter Abby, Meghan McCain, Steve Schmidt, and some of the older Bush establishment Republicans are still out there.

      When "it goes pitch black", that's who the current republicans will finally turn back to. There are positives in conservatism, and if those positives ever return, the reds will competitive nationally again.

    • AristotleAristotle says:

      The GOP could die. There hasn't been a party so divided while simultaneously alienating the center since the Whigs. That doesn't mean that they can't right the ship, but it doesn't mean that they can't list over and capsize either.

      You can say that conservatism isn't dead, but parties can and do die off when they become too dysfunctional and radical.

      • BlueCatBlueCat says:

        And there's the rub for today's GOP.  They  like to think that all the enforced ideological purity is "conservatism" and that "conservatism" and the GOP are the same thing but what they call conservatism bears increasingly little resemblance to traditional conservativism.

        The GOP has allowed itself to be dragged light yearsr from the center in a  stunningly short time time.  Reagan, the supposed conservative god, wouldn't stand a chance in a GOP primary today and would be baffled by what the party has become.  The idea that governing is desirable, much less possible, without compromise is a concept that he and every other conservative pol from the past  would find totally alien. So the survival of conservatism as as it was understood for generations and the survival of today's GOP are not necessarily the same thing.

        Besides, It wasn't that long ago that it wasn't even necessary to self identify as a conservative to be a Reuplican.  Most garden variety Main St. Republicans used to consider themselves to be pretty moderate.  There were also self identified conservative Dems and self identified Republican liberals. Ike was a self identified liberal and Republican President. Neither  "liberal" nor "conservative" were dirty words to either party.

        This isn't ancient history.  Many people alive today remember those days.  The 21st century GOP has created a new definition of  "Republican" and it doesn't seem to describe a party with much chance of thriving going forward.

        Poor ol' Singleton. Sounds like he's pretty much given up not so many years after being combative enough to force his editorial staff to publish the lamest "endorsement'" ever for GW.  Boo hoo, Mr. Singleton.

        • ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

          Hold on for a second.  Compromise is not a good thing in of itself and failure to compromise is not what is ailing the GOP.  What is ailing the GOP is, to be blunt, it spent like drunken sailors when it had power and then when it lost power it included anti-immigrant/anti-homosexual crap as leeches onto its good messaging of repentance on the growth of gov't. 

          • AristotleAristotle says:

            Failure to compromise sure isn't helping them, though, is it?

            I think you overstate how much non-fiscal conservative voters care about spending. Or even the self identified fiscal conservatives, come to think of it. For all the now-vogue lamentations from the right about Bush's spending habits, you didn't hear or read a whole lot of complaints from those quarters circa 2000-2008.

            Anyway, the point is that most voters care that the government governs, and representational governments can't do that if differing parties don't cooperate. So I'd say that it's inaccurate to say that "failure to compromise is not what is ailing the GOP." Of course, bigotry, contempt for the working class and the poor, hostility to immigrants documented as well as undocumented, and an apparent premium placed on returning women to their 19th Century status as property of either their fathers or husbands also ails the GOP, but failure to compromise is the thing that impacts the most Americans.

          • BlueCatBlueCat says:

            Compromise may not be a good in and of itself but our particular form of government can't function without it. Period. Of course you may not think our representative form of government is a good in itself  either but as long as that's what we have, compromise isn't optional. You can qubble about the degree but the cry of "no compromise" is a rejection of our constitutionally mandated form of government.

            • ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

              Is there a specific Constitutional duty that you claim is being neglected? And how do you assign "fault" in failing to meet this duty? 

              Aristotle – as for "helping the GOP", I think you got a problem with your argument.  On the one hand you are arguing that non-fiscal voters don't care about spending.  On the other hand you are seeming to argue that failure to compromise has diminished the GOP. Right?   If so, how do you recall these two positions?

              Two other things that I'm going to point out.  One is look into a group called "Pork Busters" – Instapundit (a very influential blogger for the right) was raising red flags about the GOP's spending all during the Bush admin.  Second, you said the GOP wants women to be returned to some 19th Century version of property.  Care to back that statement up?

              • ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

                RECONCILE – not recall. 

                I'm sure there are other typos/stupid errors in the post as well.  This page needs an "edit" function.  Badly.

              • AristotleAristotle says:

                Average voters don't really care deeply about spending, so long as the services they want are being delivered. GOP failure to compromise threatens those services. Remember how government shutdowns were received by the electorate?

                How many people read instapundit? Did that blogger appear on Fox programs often? Did newspaper editorials cite him?

                I didn't say that there were zero complaints from the right, just few.

                Anyway, regarding women. It's pretty well established that the conservative ideal of family is the patriarchical one. The father is supposed to be in charge. The rest are supposed to follow his lead and defer to him. This attitude is manifest in the anti-choice movement. (Chastity balls are another creepy manisfestation of this.) Everything about antichoice values the fetus over the mother, up to and including the decision of who should live and who should die in a medical emergency. That points directly to anxiety over whether the man is really the father of the fetus. The fact that it's all about the fetus (as opposed to the child that fetus will become) is underscored by the GOrP policies that leave children out in the cold once they've been born.

                If that isn't all borne of a desire to absolutely control women and keep them in their place, maybe you have a different theory? Keep in mind that you'll have to explain why the contempt for the living and breathing children if it's "pro life."

                • ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

                  Aristotle, a few points:
                  1) I agree that services getting cut off has a higher risk of resulting in negative polling.  And I know that people think back to the 1995 budget fight on that one.  However, something to bear in mind – that shutdown was able to be pinned on the GOP in part b/c Clinton was able to make it about Gingrich personally and not about ideas:

                  If the GOP had guys who were competent in messaging the result might have been different. 

                  2) Instapundit is and was HIGHLY influential in GOP circles.  Google the term "Instalaunche" – the dude was known as "the blogfather" for a good reason. 

                  3) While I get that you see the purported "patriarchy" in the Personhood debate, you actually need to show that such concerns are what are motivating actual Personhood supporters.  I've dealt with and debated actual Personhood supporters (actually their leadership) on many occassions and I'm really doubtful that you can make anything approximating this showing. I look forward to your attempts to prove me wrong here. 

                  • ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

                    Instalaunch might be without an e at the end. 

                  • AristotleAristotle says:

                    Elliot, past encounters with you have shown me that you are stubborn in the face of evidence. I could demonstrate how these attitudes inform personhood's very existence, but because there are no smoking-gun statements on record (i.e., "We just really want to keep women under our total control"), I doubt you'll be satisfied. That doesn't make me wrong, just not willing to jump through any hoops for nothing in return.

                    That addresses point three. Regarding point one, I for one am unable to conceive of a message that would have pursuaded the general public that government shutdowns were necessary. Actions are greater than words, and the actions of the GOP were given much greater weight than their words.

                    Regarding point two, you'll need to give me some proof. "Influential in GOP circles" isn't the same as "influential with elected officials," or "influential with influential broadcasters and columnists," or "influential with the general public."

                    It's like the old zen paradox. If a blogger is influential with a small number of people, and those people fail to bring that message to those in power or those that elect them, has he really written anything?

              • BlueCatBlueCat says:

                Wow, Elliot.  We have a three branch, two legislative body system  with checks and balances.  Even between members of the same party some degree of give and take is required in order to get legislation passed. Then it has to get past a possible executive branch veto and pass muster as constitutional as judged by the Judicial branch.  This all requires the ability to make adjustments as needed to go from proposal to  law of the land.

                In the legislative branch alone, what with elements such as the filibuster in the Senate and the House leadership's ability to determine what even gets to come so far as a vote in our system in play, we don't have the ability to pass legislation with no considrations beyond the support of simple majorities so all passage of legislation requires a degree of deal making. 

                If you really don't understand why our system requires deal making,  which requires compromise, in order to function, I'm more than a little stunned.

                • BlueCatBlueCat says:

                  PS Elliot.  Plum left out reconciliation between Houses, often not both under control of the same party and with the interests of Senators and Reps, even of the same party, often not converging since the former have to be elected statwewide while the latter have to beware of narrow district political reality.

                  Now, If you can tell me how anything moves in a system of government such as ours with no degree of compromise,  despite compromise not  necessarily being a good in itself, I will be  beyond stunned.  I will be flabbergasted.

                • ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

                  Bluecat – 
                  As I asked before, do you contend that there is a Constitutional duty being neglected?  If so, can you please specify which one(s) it(they) is(are)?

                  • DaftPunkDaftPunk says:


                    Why don' t you respond to what she wrote instead of what you project upon her?

                  • BlueCatBlueCat says:

                    I quite understand your reluctance to respond to what I'm actually saying and we both know what that is;  that our form of government as established  in the constitution cannot function without deal making and adjustments that require a degree of compromise at various levels. That's it. I did not say that the constitution anywhere specifically states or includes a specific amendment establishing a requirement for compromise, simply that as the government it does specifically mandate can't function without it, a blanket no to compromise is a rejection of that form of government. One could , for instance, have a functioning dictatorship without compromise (at least until it fell apart as they all do) but that's not the form of government our constitution establishes.

                    Your problem is that arguing with my point is very difficult as it is "duh" level self evident. 

                    First you tried to fabricate an alternate contention with which to argue, that compromise is a good in itself, not a contention that I ever made but one much easier to defend than the contention I did make. That didn't go terribly well for you.

                    Failing there, you are now demanding  constitutional details to back up who knows what?  Certainly not my simple contention. The outline of the mandated form of government is the only thing in the constitution relevant to my point and I've already cited that (three branches etc.), not that I suspect for a moment that you don't know all that already. 

                    You have my sympathy but you'll have no further indulgence from me. Either 1) produce your evidence that the statement, the one I made not some substitute fabrication, is wrong on its own merits, 2) admit I'm not wrong or 3) shut up. 

                    I have already and numerous times provided all the information for my side of the argument that you need in order to make an informed choice  among those options. Put up or shut up.


                    • ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

                      I'm off to dinner (in Ohio so I'm on EST), but very quickly, Bluecat – you raised a tangential point that the Constitution requires compromise to function.  Because there isn't compromise right now by extension your argument must be that the gov't isn't functioning.  That isn't the case. 

                      Beyond that to get stuff done, actually no, there doesn't have to be compromise.  There can be surrender, agreement, compromise, or deadlock.   And mere deadlock doesn't mean the country isn't functioning. 

                  • Gray in Mountains says:

                    @ Elliot-there you go giving assignments

                    a few weeks ago, and again today DP has called you out as a troll. I don't think you are a troll. I do think you engage in pedantry such that a yiddish word I only learned to pronounce and not spell would accurately describe your behavior. You are a nooj. You are bogged in detail that is usually not relevant to the discussion at hand. A nooj is very annoying. BC may be able to apply proper spelling for this term

                    • BlueCatBlueCat says:

                      Close enough and don't worry about spelling, Gray. Since Yiddish is a dialect of German with a few Hebrew words and endings but originally written with the Hebrew, not western, alphabet,  all spellings in our alphabet are transliterations and there is generally no one English way to spell a word properly. It's only with the advent of the internet that I'm able to look up preferred English spellings of words I heard from my grandparents all my younger life..So, as long as people can tell what you were going for, it's OK.

                      I just think that Elliot has a very undisciplined way of approaching arguments, probably because he isn't old enough to have had an education that demanded formality in things like logic, inductive and deductive reasoning and  the employment of those skillls in essay writing or debate.

                      It takes discipline to stick to addressing an opponent by confining one's response to that which the opponent actually set forth. Elliot's favorite way of trying to get out of this is to throw in more stuff and ask for more stuff, such as the assignments you mention. It's a throw whatever you can think of against the wall and hope something sticks method, one that would have gotten failing grades from my old teachers.

                      Sadly , somwhere along the line and pretty long ago now it was decided that what counted was creative expression of "feelings" and a wrong headed conviction that anyone's opinions were as good as anyone else's, whether based on documented fact or pulled out of you know where.

                    • DaftPunkDaftPunk says:


                      Better still: Nudnik, or shmeggege.

      • Urban Snowshoer says:

        If history is any guide, another party would rise from the ashes of an extinct GOP, it could be for better or for worse.

  4. allyncooper says:

    I agree politics is cyclical.  Everyone said the GOP was "dead" after the Goldwater debacle in 1964, then Nixon won the presidency in 1968. So "never say never", especially in politics.

    That said, the GOP has systemic problems with the changing demographic landscape, and to be relevent has to change to accomodate this reality. As William Sloan Coffin said, "You cannot put the freeze on history", and this is where the GOP's mindset is.

    • Gray in Mountains says:

      Can't say they are dead until the head has been removed and remainder filled with tar and set afire. Then put the head in some fracking fluid and injected far below the crust. Hope to live to see it.

    • dwyer says:

      Fof god;s sakes, allyncooper, it took the the assassination of the leading Democratic candidate, Robert Kennedy, and the country thrown into chaos, for Nixon to win. That is not cyclical politics, that is politics by murder.

      • AristotleAristotle says:

        Nixon was not a pushover. While it's hard to picture him beating RFK, there's no guarantee that he would have been defeated. Vietnam still had broad support, and I'm sure Nixon would have been all over it, seasoned cold warrior that he was. (Remember, Nixon's actions with HUAC touched off the Red Scare, not McCarthy's later speeches.) And if Chappaquiddick had still happened, it's impossible to say how that would have affected the RFK administration, or his chances at reelection in 1972.

        You can't look back at what could have been, only at what was.

        • dwyer says:

          Absolutely, you have to look at what was  and what was?  The assassination of the leading democratic candidate for President. You cannot speculate about  

          the 1968 election in which Nixon won with out including the fact that the leading Democratic candidate was assassinated right after he won the California primary and clinched, in many minds, the democratic nomination. 

          I don't know, nor do you, know what the outcome of a Nixon-RFK race would have been.  My point is that you must not talk about the accendency, again, of Nixon and the Republicans without including that we had a president determined, in part, by the bullet not the ballot.


          • Gray in Mountains says:

            I think RFK would have won for sure. Remember, Humphrey did very well. That was a close election

            • Gray in Mountains says:

              if Huphrey had done a better job of calling out Nixon on his "secret plan" to end the war…

            • AristotleAristotle says:

              But you can't know for sure. Personally, I would have bet heavily on RFK's election. But if history is any guide, upsets and unexpected developments happen all the time. That's why we can't say that he definitely, absolutely, 100% would have beaten Nixon, especially with the controversy of the Viet Nam war.

              Does anyone think the Chicago DNC riots would have been avoided if Kennedy had lived? I don't. Would the Chappaquiddick scandal have had a big impact on Kennedy? I think we can say that it would have been a much bigger scandal if Ted had been the sitting president's brother instead of the last Kennedy boy standing, one that would have weakened RFK's presidency and made him vulnerable in 1972. Perhaps Reagan would have run then.

              The point is, the GOP was strong enough to take advantage of the opportunities they faced. Yes, there was a divide between moderates and conservatives, but it was a crack in the pavement, one that Reagan would successfully repair*, not the ever widening chasm we see today. Hell, that unity might have proven even stronger if it weren't for the paranoia and need to get even that Nixon brought in, and which infects the party's character to this day.

              Basically, this is all to answer whether or not the GOP was really and truly dead because of Goldwater's defeat. I think it was not.

              * The key to this would be whether Reagan had pursued the Southern Strategy and invited all the religious social conservatives into the party if he were the man in the 70s, because those are the people who are tearing the party apart today.

          • BlueCatBlueCat says:

            In any case the GOP of those days bears little resemblance to the GOP of today and it's tough to see a single prominent R from then  making it through a GOP primary now.  Nixon, whatever you think of him, was nothing like any R presidential candidate in the last two presidential  primary seasons. Neither was the party in general.  1968 R versus D politics and 21st century R versus D politics is pretty  much an apples and oranges comparison if you ask me.  I know.  Nobody did. smiley

          • allyncooper says:

            Getting somewhat off topic here, but RFK was not the frontrunner or leading candidate for the Dem nomination even after he won the CA primary. At the moment of RFK's death, the delegate totals were:

            Hubert Humphrey    561
            Robert Kennedy      393
            Eugene McCarthy   258

            It was questionable if RFK would have been nominated.

            From Wikipedia :

            Tom Wicker, who covered the Kennedy campaign for The New York Times, believe that Humphrey's large lead in delegate votes from non-primary states, combined with Senator McCarthy's refusal to quit the race, would have prevented Kennedy from ever winning a majority at the Democratic Convention, and that Humphrey would have been the Democratic nominee even if Kennedy had lived. The journalist Richard Reeves and historian Michael Beschloss have both written that Humphrey was the likely nominee, and future Democratic National Committee chairman Larry O'Brien wrote in his memoirs that Kennedy's chances of winning the nomination had been slim, even after his win in California.

            Humphrey walked away with the nomination without ever having entered a single primary. This fact spawned the reforms in the delegate selection and primary proceedures which enabled George McGovern to win the nomination in 1972 in the face of opposition from traditional Democratic power brokers like the unions.




        • davebarnesdavebarnes says:

          "Vietnam still had broad support"
          Yes. Everyone over the age of 25 had some memories of a "police action" against the COMMUNIST Koreans and Chinese.
          Everyone over the age of 20 had knowledge of the COMMUNISTS building the Berlin Wall.
          Israel had been attacked just a year earlier.

      • Republican 36 says:


        I respectfully disagree.  I was in college when RFK was assassinated but he would have never won the nomination in Chicago that year. The night he won the California primary he also lost the Oregon primary to Senator McCarthy of Minnesota. Also, as I recall, VP Humphrey did not run in one primary and he still won on the first ballot at the convention. Compared to today, there were only a handful of primaries in 1968 and most of the delegates were selected by party officials and Humphrey had control of them. 

  5. dwyer says:

    I was 22 when JFK was killed and 27 when RFK was killed.  I remember the Kennedy – Nixon on the radio.  I would like to know how old the rest of you are and exactly what you remembrer from the 60s.

    I find this particular discussion fruitless.  For me, it was a bitter time and one that I can not reduce to academic speculation on a hazy Sunday afternoon.

    I don't particular think that Singletom is any prophet….and I still don't like Texans telling us what to think….whether it is Owens or Singleton.



    • AristotleAristotle says:

      Whatever. Just remember that your personal anecdotes and experiences may inform your passions, but they don't add an ounce of weight to your opinions. If they did, then there would be no point to studying things that nobody has a first-hand memory of, like the Civil War, because they all died.

    • BlueCatBlueCat says:

      Agree with Ari.  I personally am old enough to rmember the JFK assassination ( I was going on 12) and everything subsequent.  I even quite vividly rmember the Kennedy election though I was still 8, 9 when JFK took office that January.   Ir It was a very big deal to my family and neighbors. But  people who aren't old enough are cetainly capable of studying the era . 

      Republican 36, regardless of age which I wouldn't know, is absolutely right about the difference between the nomination process then and now .  Back then it was less about citizens'  primaries and more about smoke filled rooms and brokered deals.  Conventions weren't just coronations. RFK wasn't exactly wildly popular with the Dem establishment and 36's analysis is sound.

      The fact that I was a teeanger and you were a 20 something when RFK was killed and have strong emotions connected with that and the other dramatic events of the era doesn't necessarily make us more reliable objective analysts.

  6. BlueCatBlueCat says:

    Elliot, for some reason there is no" reply" showing up for me to use in response to your comment starting with the news that you're gong to dinner.. I just want to  thank you for proving my point by being so incoherent and especially for misstating what I said.  I said that  our system of government can't function without a certain degree of compromise not that the constitution couldn't function without compromise whatever that would mean. 

    I didn't bring up any discussion of the function of the constitution.  I simply stated what form of government it mandates.  As I was talking about that government   stating what it's composed of as set forth in our constitution is hardly tangential.  

    Your list of options is no argument against my contention that  vowing "no compromise" makes it impossible for our system of government o to function.. You yourself list compromise as one of your options and of course it's not an option to those who swear never to compromise.  No compromise certainly isn't an option in reconciling House and Senate versions of a bill, for instance, unless they happen to be identical in the first place which they never are.  You really are just being ridiculous.  Hope you enjoyed your dinner.

    • ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:


      Sorry, but when you bring up a vague point about a country not "functioning", its going to take some digging around your arguments to discern what you are trying to say.  You still haven't explained yourself at all in this regard. 

      • AristotleAristotle says:

        Elliot, for what it's worth, I understood her completely.

        You are extremely literal minded. I hope that serves you well in your profession, but it appears to be a hindrance apart from that.

        • BlueCatBlueCat says:

          Well, Ari, he's literal minded if you consider picking out individual words instead of entire sentences to focus on as taking written words literally.

          Yes the word "constitution" appears in my comments.  You understood me because you, like most educated adults,  process whole sentences and paragraphs.  Elliot either lacks that ability, surprising for one with the level of education required for his profession, or uses feigned obtuseness as a tactic to avoid arguments he knows he can't possibly win. If the latter, it's   been an effective, if transparent, tactic so far.  He sure has successfully avoided direct engagement in debating my point, admittedly a point so obvious any school child who's seen that little video about how a bill gets passed shouldn't have any trouble grasping it so really not worthy of much in the way of debate in the first place.

        • ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

          If somebody asks you a question it is fair game to try to get a sense of the various assumptions that they are making before you answer. 

          Bluecat, if you are comparing government to a cellphone or an oven, on what basis are you concluding that calls aren't being made or a cake isn't rising? 

          • AristotleAristotle says:

            Elliot, you should have been able to get a sense of that on first read. Her writing was clear. So your response to it either points to a fundamental flaw in your ability to comprehend the difference between literal and figurative statements, or a disingenuous style of debate whereby you pick on things that are technically incorrect instead of addressing the larger point.

            When you first came to Pols, I had figured that you were guilty of the latter, but PCG vouched for you so I let it go. But I'm not sure I was wrong.

            • ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

              Arisotle: the intial comment by Bluecat was this – ".  The idea that governing is desirable, much less possible, without compromise is a concept that he and every other conservative pol from the past  would find totally alien. So the survival of conservatism as as it was understood for generations and the survival of today's GOP are not necessarily the same thing."

              To that I responded as follows: "Compromise is not a good thing in of itself and failure to compromise is not what is ailing the GOP"

              Bluecat then made the following remarks: "Compromise is not a good thing in of itself and failure to compromise is not what is ailing the GOP"

              Since then I've been trying to pin Bluecat down on what he/she meant by "function" – that is utterly in bounds and is in fact necessary in order to address his/her point.  

              That you and bluecat jump to mild strawman attacks as I've done this might be a good illustration of why this page is viewed as a mere progressive echo chamber by many.

              If you don't want to address the "function" stuff – fine – don't do it  I got other crap to get done today.  

              • ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

                Oops – the last Bluecat comment that I was quoting was this: "Compromise may not be a good in and of itself but our particular form of government can't function without it. Period."

              • AristotleAristotle says:

                So you don't know what "function" means? Is that it?

                • ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

                  Aristotle, it can mean many things.  I wanted Bluecat to be specific as to how he/she believed the gov't wasn't funcitoning as I can't really defend against a vauge charge. 

                  Protip for the future – before you start throwing up attacks on a person, it might be wise if you first figured out where they were coming from.

                  • ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

                    (or on how the gov't couldn't function without compromise)

                  • AristotleAristotle says:

                    Elliot, here at Pols people generally agree upon common definitions of government. Surely you've heard what "function" is commonly accepted to mean when applied to Congress.

                    If you haven't, I will apologize (albeit with great wonder at how someone interested in politics could have missed something as basic as that). But I do feel that if you took time to just read and decipher for yourself what she meant (BlueCat is a woman), you would make a correct deduction. And so what if you don't? Most of us are gracious about mistakes, but not so much about pedantic "what do you mean?" cross examinations.

                    • ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

                      I didn't sign a TOS agreeing that I'd go along with any commonly accepted vagueness on this site in terms when I got a ColoradoPols username.   

                      And sorry, but "function" IS vague in how BlueCat is using.  First is the issue of time.  Is compromise always necessary for gov't to function under our system, or only at discrete points?  Second is of course what function means in of itself.  Does Bluecat mean that without compromis that we will have anarchy?  Because I'm pretty sure we don't have that right now, even though Bluecat seems (by my recollection) to be arguing that compromise is not occurring.  So if preventing anarchy isn't what "funciton" means, then what is Bluecat trying to say?

                      Sorry, but I'm not going to engage in mindreading before answering Bluecat's poorly spelled out comment. 

                    • ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

                      (and sorry for the myriad of typos)

      • BlueCatBlueCat says:

        Oh and sorry you consider the verb to "function" such a vague term. Let's see if we can help you with some examples. When a system or device or website or anything else is supposed to allow you to do something like make a call, place an order, bake a cake, if it isn't functioning that means it isn't working so you can't use it to make the call, place the order or bake the cake.  Am I typing too fast? Using confusing or unfamiliar terms?   It's really not as if the word has a plethora of various complex meanings.

        I'm going to pay you the compliment of refusing to believe that you could possibly be that stupid and stick with my theory that you use feigned obtuseness, as a tactic to avoid and distract, in this case to avoid having to admit that you can't, in fact, demonstrate that your opponent's point is invalid. It also gives you an excuse to delay and avoid by demanding more information on the pretence that you just don't have enough to understand your opponent's confusing "tangents".  Nice try but so transparent and such a sloppy technique.

  7. Half Glass FullHalf Glass Full says:

    Just want to say how awesome it is to read these fantastic, well-reasoned comments. That's all I've got. OK, done fawning.

  8. AristotleAristotle says:

    There is no REPLY link anymore. This is in response to Elliot's latest comment.

    You didn't need to agree to anything in the TOS. If you did Pols would be the ones getting on your case, not us. We are a community, and you are experiencing a sociological judgment, not a legal one.

    BlueCat simply means that Congress is supposed to pass bills and govern. It's what we, the people, expect them to do. We pay their salaries and expect them to do the work we elect them to do. Compromise is required, because one party seldom has a dominating majority (as opposed to a simple one). Also, one party seldoms hold the White House and both chambers of Congress at the same time, which is usually the only time Congress can function without compromise.

    I hope this helps.

  9. ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

    We have different views of "function" then so it is good that I teased that out of you.  Functioning isn't passing bills – it is preventing anarchy and fulfilling the duties the Constitution charges the feds with completing.  Merely passing bills is NOT indicative of a "functioning" government (i.e, if VAWA gets shot down our gov't is still "functioning" regardless of whether you agree or disagree with it), nor is it required at all times under our Constitution (it may be required from time to time depending on the circumstance). 

    • AristotleAristotle says:

      You are technically correct. But that isn't the best kind of correct.

      Congress has its constitutional duties, but I would see "preventing anarchy" as the duty of the executive branch, as they are the ones to charged with executing the law. And if it isn't required at all times, that point should be reserved for the times that it isn't required. I'd say that when they're in session, they're required to fulfill their duties.

      Technically, Congress may be functioning merely by being in session. Realistically, they are not functioning if they're not passing bills. That is their sole reason for being. They are supposed to legislate.

      Technically, government may be functioning because laws are in place, funds are being raised or borrowed and spent, and the most vital functions being met. Realistically, there are many other issues facing the nation which the citizenry wants Congress and the president to address, and they can't be when compromise isn't being reached. This may or may not trouble you, personally, but that doesn't mean it's incorrect to criticize this state of affairs, or to say that they are not functioning.

      • ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

        Mere popular desire for the government to address an issue does not convert Congress's failure to so address it into evidence of a non-functioning government.  The framers intended to prevent tyranny of the majority in the way they set the system up in the first place.  Thus where you and Bluecat may see a non-functioning government due to failure to compromise, I see a system that often is functioning as designed. 

        • ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

          should read " into dispositive evidence of a non-functioning government."

        • AristotleAristotle says:

          Except that it isn't just failing to address an issue. They're failing to do almost everything. That's what the sequester is all about.

          Anyway, the only thing that's preventing majority rule right now is the fact that the House has been gerrymandered to ensure not only a GOP majority, but giving an outsized voice to a radical branch of that party. There's nothing in the Constitution that designed this scenario.

          • AristotleAristotle says:

            BTW, you have your work cut out for you if you detect something that can be described as "tyrannical." The tyranny feared by the framers of the Constitution was that of oppression. Just budgeting the government falls a bit short of that.

          • ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

            The feds are still spending over a trillion dollars annually, even after sequester.  I hardly think that constitutes "failing to do almost everything."

            I haven't read up enough on gerrymandering to discuss it to the degree I'd like to. 

            • AristotleAristotle says:

              Government as a whole may be functioning, but enough things will not be once the cuts fully kick in to let people know that a piston isn't firing.

              Getting back to the notion of the tyranny of the majority. Don't you think that compromise does more to protect the people from tyranny? When Congress compromises, the representatives of both sides of the issue meet halfway and hammer out agreements that address the most important issues to both sides. When one side refuses, that doesn't happen.

              • ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

                Not sure if they meet halfway or not, and not sure if where they are meeting is in the middle of what people want.  In any event, even if they were doing what the majority of people wanted that still can be tyranny of the majority. 

                • Curmudgeon says:

                  Anyone else wonder why today's GOP never cared about the "Tyranny of the Majority" until they discovered their viewpoints were in the minority?


                  • ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

                    I am a registered libertarian.  And look at the wikipedia article for "tyranny of the majority" – it goes back to at least the founders. 

                    • Curmudgeon says:

                      I'm aware of the history of the term. You missed that I was pointing out that the some people never seemed to care about it until they became the minority.

                      As for you being a "Registered Libertarian", I don't doubt that. As a matter of fact, I'm not the least bit surprised.



            • BlueCatBlueCat says:

              Regardless, what the rightie spin machine won't tell you is that there has already been dramatic deficit reduction during the Obama years as there was during the Clinton years while debt and deficit ballooned during the Reagan and GW years. And the most pressing cause of shortfall is people making less and therefore paying less in taxes.

              I'd love to be paying in taxes what we were paying in the Clinton years. We had lots more desposable income then and were able to save and invest istead of just get by.  Our little business was at it peak before the right starting doing bv small business so many "favors" because plenty of people could hire us.

              Cutting jobs and replacing high  paying jobs with low paying ones is cutting our own economic throat no matter how good the deals at Walmart may be. In a depression everything is cheap but still too much for folks without jobs or decent incomes. Fix that first, the rest will be easy to fix, not the other way around.

              And don't say favors to the job creators will fix it. We've tried that.  It just made things for the rest of us worse.  As usual  things have changing for the better under a Dem President no matter what lies the right tells. Not fast enough, the GOP says, which is rich because they obstruct anything and everything that would speed it up.

  10. BlueCatBlueCat says:

    Oh, By the way Elliot, was just reviewing this thread and must say your flight from the definition of "function" to "anarchy" is most entertaining. You must indeed be running out of stuff to throw against the wall.  It's piling up pretty deep what with none of it sticking.

    Ari can continue if he likes but, as for me, way too much time has already been wasted on what you seem to think passes for debate so please excuse me while I take a much needed vacation from the noise and  incoherence and sheer mental messiness. Won't be checking this thread again so no need to reply. Have fun. Somebody better get a mop.

  11. ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

    Suit yourself.  In the future, I'd suggest that you be a bit more specific about what you are talking about and cut down on the personal attacks.  Then again, you have the protection of a psuedonymn so maybe you don't care if your word choice reflects poorly upon you. 

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.