CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese



President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*


CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*


CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks




CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg




CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Dave Williams



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*


CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen



CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi




State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
June 14, 2013 12:20 PM UTC

Gessler: "The left can jabber all they want, and, of course, the Ethics Commission is part of the left"

  • by: Jason Salzman

("Honey Badger" doesn't care – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Update: Audio added 6-15. Click here for Audio

Reporters apparently missed Secretary of State Scott Gessler's first direct response to the Colorado Independent Ethics Commission's finding that he violated state ethics law and "breeched the public trust for private gain."

Gessler made his comments on KNUS’ Kelley and Company (710-AM) this morning, and reporters should have tuned in. So I'll fill in the media gap and provide a transcript of most of his comments below. And I'll update this post with audio of the interview later today.

Guest host Jimmy Sengenberger, filling in for regular host Steve Kelley, did a decent job interviewing Gessler. 

Sengenberger: What’s your side of the story?

Gessler: …The Elections Commission, unfortunately, is a just very partisan-driven organization. I mean, two of the members have actually contributed to Hickenlooper, sort of really staunch partisan Democrats. It was pretty clear seven months ago which direction these guys were going. It took them eight months to figure out how to do it. But it was really sort of an unfair process, and it’s frustrating, because you want to think that these guys are going to be fair and even-handed and you want to think that the IRS is going to be fair and even-handed, and you want to think that, you know, things work. But they really don’t a lot of the time. So we are going to be appealing. I’m pretty confident that we’re going to get it overturned because of the way these guys handled themselves.

Sengenberger: I’m curious as to what the Independent Ethics Commission claimed you violated in terms of a statute, rule, or anything in the Constitution that might be in play?

Gessler: Right now I just don’t know. I don’t know. I really don’t know. I mean they had deliberations and they said learning about elections is not official business, which just sort of seems crazy when everyone else disagrees with them. And that was one of the most frustrating things. We spent seven months trying to get them to tell us what the legal standards were. And then a month ago they said the legal standards could be one of these two things or they could be something else, and we’ll tell you afterwards. And so we still don’t know. So, I mean, maybe when the draw up the report they’ll sort of tell me at that point. But that’s one of the frustrating areas. They just sort of make up the rules as they go along.

Sengenberger: …What do you make of the argument that, well, that you shouldn’t have done it, used discretionary funds, taxpayer money, for something that had a partisan tilt to it?

Gessler: Well, it didn’t have a partisan tilt. That’s the bottom line….We produced a three-hundred-page binder of all the materials that were discussed. None of it was partisan stuff…. I know it had the word Republican in front of it, that was the sponsoring organization, but it was not a partisan event. It was straight-up education. And all the evidence before the commission said that. But they are not really interested in the evidence before them. It was a very partisan-driven outlook.

Sengenberger: …I’m curious as to why you ended up paying back the twelve-hundred-something that you chose to pay back?

Gessler: $1278. Here’s why. I’m just trying to move on when it comes to what goes on with the people of the state of Colorado. But, the money here has been an absolute waste. The last Republican Secretary of State we had, Mike Coffman, also received a complaint from the same organization in front of the same ethics commission. And that cost probably about probably $100,000 to dispute. So these types of frivolous things have cost the state around a quarter million dollars already. And it is just sort of absurd. And you want to put it behind you. You want to have fair elections. You want to move on to trying to make it easier for people to do business and have jobs in the state of Colorado and things like that. I’m trying to put it behind me. I’m trying to push forward. And of course it’s a very vindictive organization and they’re not interested in that–the ethics commission. So that was the purpose. And I was very clear. Look, I don’t think we’ve done anything wrong. I don’t think we’ve ever done anything wrong. But $1,278 is a pretty big distraction when there’s been hundreds of thousands spent arguing over it. Let’s try to put it behind us. Let’s try to move forward. But, you know, even that’s not acceptable because the Ethics Watch organization—no I’m sorry—Ethics Commission. They all sort of blend together after a while.

Sengenberger: Yeah.

Gessler: They’re not really interested in that. They’re interested in progressive [inaudible] because they know there’s an election coming up. So they can use this as a way to generate television ads and what not. I mean, that’s really what it’s about. So it’s very frustrating.

Sengenberger: [The left is saying you should have used funds from the travel budget, not the discretionary budget.]

Gessler: They are really sort of nonsensical. I mean, they’re saying I should have used a different fund rather than this fund to go. But it was ok, but if it wasn’t ok, then I shouldn’t have done it. It’s absolutely nonsensical. What it is is a talking point. A talking point. There’s no sense or coherence. Bottom line. Everybody who’s reviewed this, except of course the Ethics Commission, the Colorado Supreme Court, an outside auditor, the State Comptroller, said this was absolutely appropriate for me to do. That’s the bottom line. The left can jabber all they want, and, of course, the Ethics Commission is part of the left. I mean they are driven by my political adversaries. I mean those are the people who judged me on this. They can jabber all they want. We now go before a real court, the district court and federal courts here. We’re going before a real court with real-world procedure. And this is just a stop on the way going forward, because, look, if you believe in this. You shouldn’t have a government agency that’s politically driven that chews people up. We’ve seen that at the IRS. We’ve seen that with the Ethics Commission. Look at it from that standpoint. I’m not going to stand for it.


78 thoughts on “Gessler: “The left can jabber all they want, and, of course, the Ethics Commission is part of the left”

  1. Another poor Republican victim.  For the tough independent up-by-the-bootstraps party y'all sure do like to whine and moan like little babies; I know, life is rough, and you get treated unfairly all the time and its never your fault.  Its those mean partisan other folks not us, not Honey Badger. 

    PS: This was just an anomaly

    Last summer, Gessler took another public dunking over his willingness to literally be dunked in a tank at a fundraiser to pay off a fine levied against the Larimer County GOP by Gessler’s own office.

    He just wants fair elections which was why he was going to moonlight at a heavily-partisan election law firm, you know the one who's clients like to photoshop out the black folks in their smear mailers.

    As was revealed in a couple week’s worth of front page newspaper stories back then, Gessler planned to moonlight at his old law firm — which deals almost exclusively with election law — while overseeing the secretary of state’s office, which has jurisdiction in that area.

    Gessler is on the up and up, he would not lie to the people of Colorado just to advance hios own gain…

    And about the same time, Gessler found himself in the political limelight after sending out a fundraising letter which, some speculated, was the first indication of his interest in running for governor in 2014.

    Gessler insists he’s not running for governor and reiterated his denial to one of our reporters this week.

    Why is it that the 'Democrat' party hates Honey Badger?  Becasue they are Judas:

    But the other thing that they don’t like is, in my view, I think about what makes America great. This is you know, probably the mainstay, is our Christian values and the freedom we have to not only exercise those but the freedom to make ourselves what we want to be.

    But do not worry, Scott will block the Soviets from Europeanizing Colorado!

    Or do we want to surrender to the socialism and failed policies that we see working their way through Europe and that we have seen abject failures in countries like the Soviet Union and others? Do we want to head in that direction or do we want to head in the direction towards freedom?



  2. Only two out of the five commission members are Dems. Are the two Republicans also lefties? If any Republican today can be considered a lefty, where the heck do these people think the center is?

    Where is EF to tell us that Gessler has explained everything so therefore, ipso facto, abracadabra, presto chango, the bipartisan commission (actually more than just bi with a non-partisan indie included) must, it only logically follows, it has been proved to EF's satisfaction, be wrong, ignorant and biased. And not at all dispositive. And they probably couldn't name Caesar's wife's alleged lover to save their lives either. Case closed, illogical lefties. It has been broadcast on the radio machine.

        1. The Colorado Observer?  Elliot.  Have you read their 'articles'?  Sorry, its like linking to World Nut Daily, and no I don't follow it. 

        1. I asked Scott some tough questions, and I think he answered them very effectively and honestly.  I would have voted in Gessler's favor.  In fact, I wouldn't have let $143,000 be wasted on wrong-headed political activities in the first place.

        2. Let's see what the IEC, which we now know doesn't quite have the appearance of nonpartisanship as previously advertised, uses to justify its decision

            1. CT, 
              The appearance of impartiality you all have been alluding to was the idea that no more than two people from a political party could be appointed to the IEC.  However, now we know that not a single IEC member was appointed by the Republicans.  Instead, former Colorado Chief Justice Mullarky (who many consider to be liberal) originally appointed one, Ritter (Democratic Governor) appointed one, Romanoff (Democrat) appointed one, and Ferrandino (Democrat) appointed one.  The last (Bill Pinkham), while "unaffiliated" was appoitned by the other IEC members who were all Democrat or (if you consider Mullarky a liberal) liberal appointed. 

              Morever, two of the commissioners donated to Gessler's opponent and refused to recuse themselves in this matter. 

              Now you may think that doesn't even raise the specter (whether valid or not) of bias.  Many are going to disagree with you on that. 

              1. Howzabout you stop pussyfooting around, Eliot? Are you and Mr. Sengenberger claiming that Matt Smith, who's been the chair of the IEC since 2009, is biased against Mr. Gessler?  Is Chief Justice Bender, who re-appointed him chair in 2011, a "liberal" as well?   

                Why don't you come out and say it, instead of skulking around with half-truths and incomplete information?

                1. I do not know whether he is biased or not.  But I don't think that the commission merely being limited to two registere democrats dispositively demonstrates LACK of bias, especially with (a) the democrats/people many view as liberals causing the appointment of the entirety of the commission; (b) the failure of people who donated to Scott's opponent to recuse themselves; and (c) the disturbing allegation that Gessler seems to be making that he has not even been told what law/standard he violated (raising the spector that he is sort of being prosecuted in an ex post facto manner)

                  Hopefully the IEC will issue a well written and reasoned opinion that will put these concerns to rest.

                    1. Bluecat was trying to argue the commission on its face was impartial because it has two republicans on it.  Point (a) undermines that attempt

                  1. I don't agree with 90% of what Matt Smith stands for (he ran for State Rep as not much more than an anti-abortion candidate, for crying out loud), and I think his brother-in-law is a spineless plagiarist. But I respect the SOB, because best of my recollection, he's never wavered in his principles. even for political expediency.   For you to imply he's biased, without having the guts to actually come out and say it, is less than he deserves.

                    But it's becoming pretty common for you. 

              2. So now counselor the 'spectre of' is equal to 'know'? Again your argument shifts.  And now you will tell me why it hasn't.  And it will satisfy no one but you, and perhaps the Guppy should he swing by (doubtful, its a weekend…expect to see him Monday in the afternoon, scurrying by to leave a few droppings). 


                which we now know doesn't quite have the appearance of nonpartisanship as previously advertised – See more at:

                which we now know doesn't quite have the appearance of nonpartisanship as previously advertised – See more at:

                which we now know doesn't quite have the appearance of nonpartisanship as previously advertised – See more at:

                1. So now counselor the 'spectre of' is equal to 'know'?

                  Not sure what you are trying to say here. 


                  Again your argument shifts.  And now you will tell me why it hasn't. 


                  Again, I think you are confusing distinct arguments from shifting arguments.  Where has my argument, on a singular point shifted?


                  And it will satisfy no one but you, and perhaps the Guppy should he swing by (doubtful, its a weekend…expect to see him Monday in the afternoon, scurrying by to leave a few droppings). 

                  Once again, I'm not sure what you are trying to argue.

                  which we now know doesn't quite have the appearance of nonpartisanship as previously advertised – See more at:

                  which we now know doesn't quite have the appearance of nonpartisanship as previously advertised – See more at:

                  which we now know doesn't quite have the appearance of nonpartisanship as previously advertised – See more at:

                  – See more at:

                  Not sure why you are quoting these sections.  Can you be more specific?

                  1. You demand a lot for someone who never answers any specifics.  In fact, your favorite evasion is to ask for further explanation before you will condescend to address a point.  Funny how the rest of us manage to figure out what a person is saying without demanding extra help or assigning extra homework, and just go ahead and address the point. You couldn't be a more hilarious parody of yourself in every response you make if you were actually trying to be.

                    1. Bluecat, 
                      My experience with you and several others on this page is that you guys pick and choose when you want to answer my questions so that you can avoid any substantive points I am making.  I've had other people who are of varying political beliefs read various threads on this page and they have validated my perception.

                      I don't give you a hard time about it because you aren't under any obligation to answer what I ask you.  However, to the extent that anybody who is undecided is reading this page I will let my comments (and your nonresponses to them) stand for themselves.  

                      I will also note that I have offered in the past to resolve our outstanding procedural type concerns over coffee or something similar with somebody like PCG present.  So far you haven't taken me up on that.  Again, you aren't under any obligation to do so, but that offer is still open.

                  2. raise the specter of something (American) to make people worry that something unpleasant will happen


                    verb \ˈnō\

                    Definition of KNOW

                    transitive verb


                    a (1) : to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2) : to have understanding of <importance of knowing oneself> (3) : to recognize the nature of : discern


                    b (1) : to recognize as being the same as something previously known (2) : to be acquainted or familiar with (3) : to have experience of


                    a : to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of


                    b : to have a practical understanding of <knows how to write>


                    by all appearances

                    apparently; according to what one sees or how things seem.

                    You are not really that obtuse are you?  Your arguments shift.  All the time. 

                    1. Again, I am not sure what you are trying to argue.  Can you spell it out a little more simply please?

                2. There is no "reply" for Eliot's comment that I was arguing that the commission must be impartial because of the presence of two Rs, along with  two Ds and an indie.  As usual,  Eliot has substituted something he wanted to argue with for what I actually said.

                  I don't pretend to be able to guarantee that anyone or any group is impartial. I simply noted the two Rs and asked if Gessler's characterization of the commission as a whole as an instrument of the left means that the two Republican commission members are to be considered liberals. Regardless of who appointed them, does Eliot agree that these two Republicans themselves are liberals and if so why?

                  This interests me because I thought that the extinction of  liberals in the GOP was a fait accompli. A liberal Republican sighting would certainly be something worth noting, hardly less surprising than a dodo sighting.

                  I will now decline to await any direct answer  from EF to this simple question because I know that none will be forthcoming.Once again,  as usual.

                    1. Thanks for not clarifying why you asking us to is any reasonable request?  The ethics commission ruled.  Its not the appealte court.  Its standards are its standards.  You think its not impartial or that it has not to your satisifation shown to be impartial and I ask…in all seriousness…who gives a damn what you think?  Answer that first.  Why your opinion matters in what we should think here.  You have not shown the IEC to be impartial or (more importantly) that such impartiality affected its decision.  We don't need to show that your doubt doesn't matter, you need to show us it does.  You haven't. 

                    2. And there it is. The complete failure to answer  a direct question just exactly as I predicted. Not that I needed ESP or anything. The question was, do you think the two Republicans on the commission are themselves liberals.

                      I continue to decline to await an answer. You know why you throw up all these road blocks to a direct answer to a simple question? You don't have the guts for it. All you ever do is run and hide when confronted with a simple fact or question. Or brandish your favorite magic lawyer words like talismans.

                      Oh and don't bother to respond by telling me why my question doesn't deserve an answer.  You've more than used up your bullshit quota for the week already. Make it for the month. We're done here. Have a Happy Father's Day, though.

                    3. Bluecat, 
                      I have no idea if the Republicans on the commission are liberal or not.  What I know is that not a single Republican has made an appointment to the commission and that every appointment (besides the Commission appointing the fifth member) has been made by Democrats or a Colorado Supreme Court Justice who many consider to be liberal. 

                      Now that that is addressed, can you please specify what statute or law you contend that Gessler violated? 

      1. It is quite telling that even the Republican members of the Commission were not appointed by Republicans.  How can you have faith in the objectivity of the appointees if they were all selected by people of one political party?  It is a huge flaw in our ethical system.

        1. In today's wingnutty GOP it is probably true that life-long conservatives like Matt Smith (who took on Bill Owens over Ref A…and won) are now secretly partisan liberal moles.  But I am not so sure how that fringe position gets you to 50% + 1. 

        2. It doesn't "tell" anything. You and EF seem to be cut from similar cloth. This notion of "dispositive", as if your and EF's rambling somehow raise important and critical observations, is so weak as to be laughable.

          Gessler has demonstrated very poor judgment, and very weak personal character in his role of SOS. He deserved what he got. Case closed.

          1. So what rule did he violate?  What statute or other law?  Remember, he used a DISCRETIONARY fund to go to a Supreme Court approved CLE.  

          2. (now when the opinion comes out, if it doesn't just make conclusory statements but actually supports why Gessler screwed up UNDER A LAW that is a different story.  I have yet to see though a citation as to what Gessler actually violated and why, despite asking you all repeatedly )

            1. Citing "why Gessler screwed up UNDER A LAW" is not the standard. It is the "Ethics in Government" Act at issue here, Article XXIX of the Colorado Constitution. The standard is to "hold the respect and confidence of the people," avoid "violation of their public trust or that creates a justifiable impression among members of the public that such trust is being violated," and to not "realize personal financial gain."

              You do not have to break a law to violate the public trust. You do not have to break a law to violate the Ethics in Government provision of the Colorado Constitution. That is the standard the Commission is charged with enforcing. They did so.

              Of course, the Denver DA is still looking into whether a law was broken. Different issue, handled in a different way. But if the determination of the DA is that no law was broken (or that he thinks such could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt in court), that does not mean that there was no violation of the Ethics acticle of the Colorado Constituion. In fact, that was the whole purpose of the Ethics in Government Act: there are some things that may not be illegal but are unethical, and the people have a legitimate right to demand ethical conduct from its elected representatives and public employees. And they voted overwhelmingly for that initiative.

                1. (Along with serious concerns of selective enforcement…would taking money from Bloomberg be a violation of the public trust? 😉 

                  /slight sarcasm

                2. I guess all I've got is the Colorado Constitution and the fact that most governmental bodies have ethics provisions that set standards far above "don't get caught breaking the law." If we have to write a rule to cover every possible ethical transgression or else it "doesn't count," that is a sad state of affairs and pretty low expectations of our elected officials and public employees.

                  Gessler seems unique in having problems with the concept of the public trust that most others seem to manage without problem. I don't think it is the system. I think it is Gessler.

  3. What a surprise that you think it's quite telling. And that, like EF, you don't address the actions in question. At least you answered a direct question from Salzman. Of course it was the one directed to EF which, as usual, he refused to answer. But you didn't say why you thought Gessler's spending public funds as he did was ethical. You may have perfectly sound reasons for coming to that conclusion but you don't offer any. Just some whining about what I assume you believe to be RINOs. Yawn.

    1. Bluecat, 
      I love how you seem to think I have to answer all of your questions.  I don't.  Just as you, and this page, hardly ever answer mine.  

      1. First, you mostly never answer questions.  You dodge and weave and depoly what you seem to image are clever lawyerly tactics. 

        Second, your questions change with every post…its a never ending stream of nonesense from what I can tell. 

        1. I answer just about every question you guys throw my way, within reason.  I can't say the same on your guys side.  And this is probably the reason you guys descend into an echo chamber – eventually all those except people with the highest patience get sick of the way you all discuss things. 

          1. Hey, El–

            You just blew thru my small amount of patience.  The ruling has NOT been published yet.  Because we cannot produce this, we are wrong.  The Repubs on the committee are RINOs, Gessler and you are perfect and the Beatles are going to re unite.  If I can find the report when it's published, I'll post it here.  Until then go away, very, very far away. 


            1. If you guys stop rushing to judgment prior to the decision being released by your comments and these posts, I wouldn't be stuck defending Gessler.  😉

              1. Rushing to Judgment???  {must stop head from exploding}

                The IEC ruled.  You are truly a piece of work.  You think the Constitution is vague?  So who gives a flying flip and what does that have to do with the price of a tax-funded political junket?  Change the Constitution then.    And wait until you have something to critique because now the burden of proof is on you, not us.  The issue is settled I think.  You opinion on how well the IEC did is both irrelevant and unimportant.  It simply does not matter.  No one cares if you think the IEC may have been wrong and us not agreeing with that means we are ‘rushing to judgment’.  Sorry to be the one to break it to you. 

  4. You said 'we know' then when challenged it became 'at least raises the specter of.'  I wish to leave that with you as your homework assignment, my question–asked above–along with a bonus.  The question above was: do you think 'we' 'knowing' (presumably meaning: those of us here having arrived at a certitude)  is really the same as 'at least raise the specter of' (presumably meaning, following its common useage: opens the door for possibilities, causes some to be concerned it may occur etc.) .  In the one it is us, in the second it is to some unknown to whom; the first speaks to certainty, the second to doubt or possibility.  They are not the same.  A minor point pointed to as but an example of your ever-shifting arguments and standards. 

     BONUS: In 35 words or less, tell us why your opinion matters here, why the rest of us need to wait until you determine if the IEC was impartial and issued a fair decision in order to be reasonable and not 'rush to judgment.'  Why, again, should we give a damn what your opinion is?


    1. CT, 
      I haven't had "ever shifting arguments."  Again you are confused.  I raised an ADDITIONAL argument.  Namely, that there was some questions that could potentially be raised regarding the impartiality of the IEC given how the appointments were made plus the failure of various members of the IEC to recuse themselves after donating to Gessler's opponent.  This SUPPLEMENTS the argument I've raised repeatedly: that until we see the logic of the ruling we cannot say whether the ruling is on a solid basis or not. 

      Hopefully this clears things up for you. 

  5. I think when folks are appointed to an ethics commission and know what their role is supposed to be that they will leave partisanship out of it. No R Gov has made appts because there has not been an R Gov since the IEC came about. The good fortune of the state, in other words, has prevented such an occurrence. But, these folks were not all appointed by one person. This is not the first group on the IEC. At least some of them have rotated out. The arguments that EF and the radio host postulate regarding the partisanship of Justices in making appts makes it plain that they would attack any  ruling by the Supremes that displeases them on the same basis

    1. Gray, 
      Again, I'm not attacking the IEC's partiality, I'm saying you can't definitively conclude they are nonpartisan based merely on the fact that they have two GOP members when they were appointed almost exclusively, if not exclusively, by democrats/liberals. 

      As for attacking "any ruling" we don't have the written decision yet, just the final ruling.  My point has been that until we see the logic that the ruling we cannot say whether the ruling is on a solid basis or not.  This isn't being unreasonable – its simply saying let's wait and see what the basis of a condemnation is before we can say whether it is justified or not. 

  6. Matt Smith is Scooter's McPlagarist's brother-in-law.  Just saying, the guy has serious GOP cred, or use to.  Back when people like he and Berry could get elected in the Mesa county GOP. 

    Those days are gone.  By today's standard Matt Smith is practically a 'RINO' but so is Scooter and so is Bill Owens–who appointed one of the members to another board if I recall the bios I read correctly.  It would be literally as enlightening and productive to argue with a houseplant as it is with Mr. Fladen.  That he likes to insult us along the way for not being convinced by his brilliance and cleverness just adds to the fun. 

    1. We migrated to a new dedicated server last night at about 10:30PM. It's possible there are a few comments posted around that time, or shortly after, that were left on the old server as the transition was underway. We'll talk to our hosts to see if these can be restored.

  7. Here are the comments to this thread temporarily lost in the server switch that took place last night. Sorry for the inconvenience:


    2013-06-15 20:58:31

    You 'win.'  You are so amazingly smart.  I will await your decision on what I should think about the ruling that came out unanimously from the IEC.  Because, honestly, what do any of us know, or even see the specter of, until Elliot Fladen, esq. has opinioned?


    2013-06-15 21:05:35

    And whether you can ever definitely conclude that Elliot matters not a whit. \r\n

    And you have been going on and on raising questions about the IEC's partiality, which to all of us outside the EF bubble looks a lot  –in fact– like 'questioning.'  I recall a Cheech and Chong skit about dog shit, here.

    Your question has shifted again. It is not unresonable that YOU want to wait until you are satisfied before YOU have an settled opinion.  THAT is reasonable.

    It is, on the other hand, absurd that you have any expectations that others need to wait until YOU are satisfied until they can reasonably be so without rushing to judgement. 


    2013-06-15 21:07:49

    …rather it looks like 'attacking.'  I mean WTF 'why deny the obvious child?'  I honestly think you have spun this web of nonesense so thick around you that you think what you are spilling out here does make sense.  Egads!


    2013-06-15 21:10:40


    2013-06-15 21:17:04

    Tellingly, you just scream "shifting" without actually raising a point beyond saying that I've "shifted" questions, which I have not done.  But hey – if its more enjoyable to put up images of people banging their head against the wall, have fun. 


    2013-06-15 21:31:36

    I DIDN'T SCREAM!  Oh, sorry, I did just then.  I'm not going to go back and outline all the arguments and nuanced twists you have taken.  I'm sorry you cannot seem to locate such yourself.  I do understand the difference between parallel (red herring usually) arguments and a shifting argument, and you deploy both with frequency. And thank you, again, for your condescending approach and tediously pedantic lecturing.  It is a most effective advocacy tool.

    It may be telling to you, but I wager I am not alone in my summation.

    Can I get an Amen? 


    2013-06-15 22:04:32

    You realize, of course, that if the Democrats (and the Chief Judge of the Supreme Count) were as devious and nasty as you imply, they did not have to appoint any Republicans? They could have appointed two Democrats and the other three could have been Unaffiliateds–or Green Party or whatever.

    I think it is unfortunate that both the Republicans and Democrats each seem to think they "deserve" two slots, and practice (as far as I know) has been to give them each two. (That's probably because of the outcrys of "partisanship" that would come from people like you if it was not "balanced.") But the Constitution does not give that "right"–only the guarantee to the people that there will be not more than two from a single party. But the fact that, for example, the Democratic Senate President appointed the Republican Sally Hooper (as one of the original appointees) rather than an Unaffiliated or member of another party undercuts your argument.

    Duke Cox

    2013-06-15 22:27:19

    Yes…you can. I was once actually somewhat impressed with the relentless application of lawyer-speak laid on us by the Counselor.

    I no longer bother responding to his stuff.


    2013-06-15 22:27:31

    Oh you and Occam.  That's one of the comments I am sure Elliot cannot be bothered to answer.


    2013-06-15 22:31:52

    What is the question you want me to answer now? 

      1. Cheech & Chong was in response to the notion that EF was not 'attacking' the partiality of the IEC by asking relentless questions that attacked their partiality.  He was merely posing questions–that attacked their partiality.  Good thing he didn't step in it! 


          a late comment from a friend….sent to me by e-mail


          Too bad neither elliot or the radio asshole bothered to find out about
          the ethics commission.

          Legislative appointments have to be approved by 2/3 majority of both
          houses.  Therefore, a WHOLE LOT of republicans had to approve the

          RE the statutory basis of the charges against Gessler, they haven't done
          their research.  It's conflict of interest. Article 29 of the Colorado
          Constitution says:

          Section 6. Penalty.
          Any public officer, member of the general assembly,local government
          official or
          government employee who breaches the public trust for private gain and
          any person or
          entity inducing such breach shall be liable to the state or local
          jurisdiction for double the
          amount of the financial equivalent of any benefits obtained by such
          actions. The manner
          of recovery and additional penalties may be provided by law.

          Breaches the public trust.  That's the key sentence.  The Ethics
          commission found that Gessler had breached the public trust.

          The radio asshole didn't do his homework.


    1. Also a good thing they stopped teaching formal logic decades ago. His teachers may have wound up institutionalized.

      I notice he's still lost as to what CT is talking about.  Still begging for more clarifiaction. When he says we don't answer his questions he means we do but not in a way that's comprehensible to him and then we refuse to re-explain everything we just said.  Not that he pays any attention.  He constantly reads things in my comments that I didn't put there and argues with the points he fabricates instead of any I actually made.

      Anyone else having a problem understanding CT or keeping track of what people actually write when responding? Didn't think so. ArapGoof, naturally, doesn't count. Not even sure it's a sentient being.

        1. I don't think he's a troll. I think he's a lawyer, and it amuses him to make facetious arguments in a throw shit against the wall and see what sticks manner, like a defense attorney with no real case. He doesn't have to believe what he's saying, because it's not his job to believe it. It doesn't even have to be plausible. He just has to keep throwing shit out there.  

          1. And this is exactly why you guys have become a liberal echo chamber.  You just insult every single person who disagrees with you.  I'm out. 

            1. You are wrong about that, Elliot.

              Republican 36, Barron X, Craig, and a few others whose names don't immediately spring to mind, have long histories with this blog. I don't agree with much they have to say, but they are straightforward and honest in their presence here. They get respect because they show respect.

              The niggly little word games you like to play with us are a sign of disrespect for our collective intelligence. We don't much appreciate that.

              If you are leaving…goodbye. I, for one, won't miss you.

              1. The last gambit of a player that can't accept losing. Taking my ball and going home.

                Elliot is a bright young man who has much to learn about people. He'll get it…someday…maybe.

            2. The frustration so many of us feel has nothing, not a thing, to do with disagreement.  I can't speak for everyone but I believe it's more to do the way you handle disagreement.

              When confronted with an opposing view your only response seems to be to attempt to score what you believe to be points on technicalities.  I  believe that strikes many of us as an annoying, even infuriating, evasion of the honest and direct exchange of ideas. 

              As for disagreement we certainly aren't monolithic in our views. We disagree with one another on a pretty regular basis and try to discuss our disagreements in as clear and straightforward a way as we can manage and by providing sources and evidence for our opinions, the goal being to understand and maybe even persuade or be persuaded by one another, not to score points. 

              All that said, I'm sure this effort at "clarification" will be as futile as all the others that various among us have attempted.  Peace be with you, EF.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

73 readers online now


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