President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
October 26, 2007 03:37 PM UTC

Open Line Friday!

  • 59 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“When a gay person turns his back on you, it is anything but an insult; it’s an invitation.”

–Rush Limbaugh

Comments

59 thoughts on “Open Line Friday!

  1. “I just don’t like homosexuals. If you ask me, they’re all homosexuals in the Pudding. Hey, I was glad when that Pudding homosexual got killed in Philadelphia.” – U.S. Senate Candidate Al Franken

      1. ….led pretty much to nowhere.  Sort of a circle jerk, unsurprisingly.  A few “sources”, then blogs that picked it up.  BTW, 1976.  Yes, that is certainly relevant to a senatorial run in 2007, isn’t it?

        One source credits that bastion of non-bias, the Washington Times.

        This one, http://www.rightwing… leads me to believe that Franken was being intentionally over the top…you know, attempting humor.  Do you really think that a Hasty Pudding homosexual – if there even was – would happen to be the victim of a crime in Philadelphia?  Pretty small odds, I’d say.

        Come on Fog-brain, why would someone who has openly and loudly supported gay rights say something like that?  Hypocrite?  Possibly, but far from likely.  A bad joke that the cons can’t nuance out?  Far more likely. 

        1. BTW, 1976.  Yes, that is certainly relevant to a senatorial run in 2007, isn’t it?

          You mean like forged AWOL papers from the early seventies being relevant to a Presidential election in 2004?

          BTW, I’d have a hard time believing Franken was anti-gay.  The remarks were probably him being funny, which he’s pretty good at.

      2. I hope you don’t consider the Harvard Crimson a wingnut site that has all those fake HRC quotes.

        Also, I like that you don’t care to have the Limbaugh quote sourced.

        1. If you think there’s a problem with that quote, then YOU challenge it.

          The substantive difference between one and the other is that Limbaugh’s quote is entirely in line with everything else he’s said. No need to challenge that IMHO.

          And as parsing points out, that was 1976. I know of many politicians and people who were full-on homophobes then because of all the ignorance surrounding gay issues and the absurd idea that people choose to be that way. Most of us know better in 2007, so unless you can find any evidence that he still feels that way I’ll chalk this up as another Foghorn attempt to get back at all that unfair use of stupid right wing quotes – an empty gesture.

          Glad to see you’re still being the immature, “throw it back in their face” kind of debater you’ve proven to be. Lord knows I don’t need substance from you to prove that your hard right positions are the correct ones for a better America.

          1. I just wanted to show that are people on both sides of the isle who say stupid things.  Wouldn’t you agree?

            You have to admit that even joking about someone being murdered, like Franken did, is in bad taste, no matter how long ago it was. 

            You can call me immature, I really don’t mind name calling, but the truth is that I was just pointing out that liberals say stupid things too. 

                    1. you are supposed to call it the “Democrat” party and all members of it are “libruls”, and they are “self righteous” not “righteous”.

                      If you’re going to use them so much, at least get your labels and stereotypes correct Foggy.

            1. I’m afraid I’m in partial agreement with Foghorn on this one.  If tasteless jokes from Limbaugh are fair game, so are tasteless jokes by Al Franken, even if they were made 30 years ago.  In context, it’s obvious that he was just thinking up something outrageous to say for the Crimson article.  I hope he wouldn’t say the same thing today.  Even in 1976, it’s uncomfortably close to a tasteless joke about an actual lynching.

                  1. His humor, such as it is, doesn’t reach to satire very often.  If he’s lucky, he gets to parody and caricature every once in a while.  I used to listen to Rush somewhat regularly in the misty, murky past; most of his humor is in finding just the right stereotype or extremist example to underscore a movement – a la “Feminazis”.

                    1. Since you listened to him often in hte past you you know that he is very humorous and says many things that are not meant to be taken seriously. 

                    1. You said:

                      “Comparing a statement Rush says seriously with a statement Al says satirically is stretching…for what I have no idea.”

                      And I asked how do you know what Rush said was meant to be taken seriously.

                      Care to answer?

                      Thanks! 

                    2. She can’t answer the question without somehow coming up with some sort of bizarro-logic that different standards apply to Rush than any other commentator.

                    3. Although I’ll give you this – he often says things he doesn’t mean. And this could be one of those times.

                      However.

                      He’s not funny and Al Franken is.

                      So I suppose it comes down to that.

                1.   Remember John Kerry quip about those who are in military service in Iraq?  Kind of fell flat as a joke, even after he explained the punch line.
                    Al Franken is a left wing Rush Limbaugh with something of a sense of humor (and for all we know, without the E.D. and Oxycontin problems from which poor Rush suffers).
                    However, were I to be living in Minnesota, while Franken would not be my first or second choice for that Senate seat, I would ultimately vote for him over Norm Coleman (who is something of a Mitt Romney-type) in the general election just to try to get the Dems up to 60 seats.

            2. But apparently you wanted me to, or esle why did you say this:

              “Also, I like that you don’t care to have the Limbaugh quote sourced.”

              You’re having a hard time following the thread, like that time a month or so ago.

              “You can call me immature, I really don’t mind name calling, but the truth is that I was just pointing out that liberals say stupid things too.”

              It’s not name calling, it’s judging. And you’ve pointed this out ad nauseum, resulting in Pols posting such quotes (often without any comment from us liberals) which is why continuing to bring it up is immature.

  2. My sister is up for confirmation as the Director of Land and Natural Resources (cabinet position) in Hawaii. The Senate and the Gov hate each other – the state has been totallt Democratic forever and Linda Lingle (R) got elected Gov in a perfect storm, and then re-elected in a landside. So the Dem Senate there is like the Republican wiingnuts here in terms of how they handle it.

    Anyways, it seems to be going good so far. Of course it helps that my sister is a Dem.

    1. But I have to ask, how did your Republican mother produce two Dems children?  (Does partisan affiliation skip a generation in your family?  Or did you get it from your father’s side?)

      1. And my dad is a little to the right of Atilla the Hun. I think it may be an alternate on generations thing. One of my daughters I’m afraid will be a Republican (you try and try with your kids but sometimes you fail…).

        On the flip side, while my sister is a liberal Dem, she’s still to the right of my mom…

  3. I’m sitting having my morning cup of coffee, watching the District 5 Candidate Forum on channel 8.  Wow, oh wow!  I almost fell off my chair laughing.  First of all, I’ve never seen Raymond speak at a forum before, and now I know why; and now I really know why Ray dropped out of high school, and (according to a friend of mine at Metro) why he has dropped out of Metro.  He’s stupid!  It’s a complete joke that he is even a candidate, and now more than ever, Ray’s endorsement by the DCTA is a clear sign of disrespect towards the citizens of D-5. 

    Sitting between Arturo and Tony, both of whom are articulate, smart and qualified candidates, Ray looks like the immature, unintelligent, and unconcerned puppet candidate that we all knew he was!  Look at him! He’s just sitting there, literally playing with his hands, sweating out of that cheap suit, hoping to God that a meteor hits the building so he won’t have to speak again!  He’s like a young George W. Bush; smiling and laughing at the end of every answer.  Idiot. 

    My two favorite parts so far:  When Arturo and Tony both hold back their laughter after Ray’s first answer, and next, when Ray asks one of the panelists to repeat the really confusing and easily forgettable question of “what is your biggest concern with DPS?”

    I know what my concern is:  I’m terrified that a kid like this might end up making decisions about our schools! 

    Call to action:  Call/write Kim at the DCTA and tell her how much of a moron she is for choosing another moron to endorse!  Also, call/write Rep. Jerry Frangas and tell him that he too is a moron for backing a candidate like Ray!

        1. …on if you count the mercenaries and the interest on the money we borrow.

          Whatever the exact number is, Everett Dirksen pegged it: “A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon we are talking real money.” 

          We could use some more competent, truly conservative Republicans like him today.

          1. whether I’m right or wrong,
            you couldn’t get my point because I never made it.
            May I try again ?

            the $12 Billion a month is what is funded out of the supplemental authorization bills. 
            This pays for the stuff that’s over and above what’s in the annual Defense Appropriations and Authorizations bills. 

            The $12 Billion is for all the extra stuff like:
            +++ mercenaries to protect convoys;
            +++ mine resistant vehicles that are specific to OIF and OEF;
            +++ $4 Billion a year for IED-defeat research;
            +++ CERP funds where maneuver commanders pay locals to stop shooting at them; and
            +++ $1.2 Billion paid to DynCorp to …. well, we’re not really sure what for. 

            My hidden meaning, what I failed to explicitly state,
            is that we are spending at least another $3-4 Billion per month,
            money that comes from the basic DOD budget,
              on the Iraq war for things like:
            — repair and salvage of equipment worn or damaged in Iraq;
            — transporting units rotating in and out of Iraq;
            — providing guided tours of the Green Zone for tourist Congressmen; and
            — enlistment and reenlistment bonuses. 

            The DOD is taking the funds to pay for these items out of other accounts in the basic (not supplemental) appropriations.
            That leaves less to spend on things like family support programs or weapons systems maintenance.

            Other costs of the war would have to be paid, regardless of if we we at war or not.  Things like aircraft procurement and salaries. 
            So it could be misleading to consider those to part of the cost of the war.
            .

  4. Somebody from outside the district was asking to see Doug’s franking last time, so I thought I’d post this week’s version.

    I posted it on Picasa here.

    I just love the picture of scissors poised to slice through red tape, right above This mailing was prepared, published and mailed at taxpayer expense.

    1. what was printed in the Cherry Creek paper that Johnson is responding to, but there have been rumors floating around that the aide was responsible for attacks on Charley Brown emanating from Lisa Jones on her previous blog.

      Jones had a blog for a while (and periodically posted here) devoted to Denver Politics/government.

      Her blog abruptly ceased and all archives were pulled earlier this year (I think she may have started a new one, but don’t know that for sure).

      There was a news story about it, suggesting that the blog stopped because of Jones’ relationship with a city council staffer (not Johnson’s aide).  Speculation is that Jones did not want her relationship with the staffer to be construed as the source of the attacks on Brown, when in point of fact the source was Johnson’s aide.

      This is all speculation and rumor but it apparently has a life of its own and of cours may or may not be true.

  5. … .. A review of Bush administration budget proposals by the Huffington Post showed that the flow of money from the US Forest Service to help state and local communities fight wildfires faced chronic cuts since President Bush was elected.

    During Bush’s first year in office, the Forest Service’s State Fire Assistance program for wildland fire management was funded at approximately $56 million per year. But the President’s budget proposal for 2008 only requests $35 million from Congress, an 18% cut from what it spent in the current year, already well below the earlier levels.

    Assistance to volunteer firefighting forces increased to a level of about $12 million during 2007, but only after Congressional intervention. At first, the Forest Service had requested only $7.8 million. After the budget mushroomed to the higher level, the administration proposed a 38% cut for next year, reducing the budget to help volunteer firefighters to $8 million, less than the level it was funded at in 2001. … ..

    Before Fires, Bush Cut Fire Preparedness Budgets, Outsourced Forest Service Work

    Protecting citizens and fighting fires, this is what government is supposed to do. Things the citizens can’t. Considering that Bush is the biggest federal spender since L.B.J., you’ve really got to question Republican priorities.

    George W. Bush, despite all his recent bravado about being an apostle of small government and budget-slashing, is the biggest spending president since Lyndon B. Johnson. In fact, he’s arguably an even bigger spender than LBJ.

    “He’s a big government guy,” said Stephen Slivinski, the director of budget studies at Cato Institute, a libertarian research group.

    The numbers are clear, credible and conclusive, added David Keating, the executive director of the Club for Growth, a budget-watchdog group.

    “He’s a big spender,” Keating said. “No question about it.” … ..

    Bush is the biggest spender since LBJ….but under his adminsitration….the nations priorities are all fucked up. What a loser.

    h/t Taylor Marsh
     

    1. If he wasn’t a Bush or similar, he would be another divorced oilman sitting in a bar tonight complaining about what could have been.

      He couldn’t play sports, he couldn’t get good grades, he couldn’t make a dime without intervention or support of the family or the government (the Ranger’s use of eminent domain) or the Supreme Court.

      But the stupid voters of America elected him ‘cuz he seems like a nice guy.  Our nation’s greatest failure ever, and hopefully the last, of electoral politics.

      Deep down I’m sure he knows this, too.

  6. It’s possible that gays’ fights for their rights will save us all.  They may be the frong line against discrimination.  Gays rights struggles may end up ensuring pro se rights.  Gays are more likely to be pro se because they have constitutional issues, they are willing to stand up for their rights, they are supported in standing up for their rights, they are educated, and they are generally middle class.

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

40 readers online now

Newsletter

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