President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta



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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson



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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd



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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese



CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore



CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk



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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans



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
December 01, 2007 04:45 PM UTC

Weekend Open Thread

  • by: Colorado Pols

We’re hard on you because we love you.


92 thoughts on “Weekend Open Thread

  1. Under a banner proclaiming “Fidel Udall” a group ( has begun running TV spots in western Colorado.  They rely on threat most credible of (frontrange) Coloradans to carry their message–none other than BOTH WAYS BOB…  

    Go Bob Go!  If you keep writing such unadulterated bullshit, maybe they’ll give you a column at the Rocky…

    1. Actually, I think the “How do you know she’s a witch” scene from Monty Python and Holy Grail is a better analogy for this site. (“Turned me into a newt!  Well …. I got better.”)

      Eons ago, I taught calculus and operations research to college kids.  In optimization problems, one of the things students struggled with was understanding the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions.  I showed this video clip to teach the difference.

    2. It’s still a great sketch after all these years.

      That reminds me, a short time back one of the tabloids used a still from the same sketch to make a similar point about the Conservative Party.  But things change fast, as this article from the Telegraph makes clear:

      Tories open historic lead over Labour in poll

      By Robert Winnett, Deputy Political Editor

      Last Updated: 2:50am GMT 30/11/2007

      The Conservatives have opened up their biggest lead over Labour since Margaret Thatcher was at the height of her powers as Prime Minister almost 20 years ago.

      An exclusive YouGov poll for The Daily Telegraph puts the Tories on 43 per cent – 11 points ahead of Labour, who have sunk to just 32 per cent. Only two months ago the Tories trailed Labour by 11 points and were facing the prospect of a landslide defeat in an early election.

      The lead – the Tories biggest since Baroness Thatcher’s heyday in 1988 – demonstrates the extent of the crisis now gripping Gordon Brown’s government in the wake of the run on the Northern Rock bank, the loss of 25 million child benefit records and the party funding scandal.

      Today’s poll is the first since the donations row erupted earlier this week and underlines the dramatic swing away from Mr Brown since September following the decision not to hold a snap election.

      In September before the recent run of scandals broke, Mr Brown was seen as unbeatable in the polls with senior Labour aides boasting that they were preparing to “destroy” the Conservatives for a generation.

      The rapid reversal of fortunes is described by the leading electoral expert Anthony King as “among the most devastating for any Government in the history of opinion polling”.

      The poll also reveals growing unease among the electorate over the prospects of an economic downturn – and a distinct lack of confidence in Mr Brown’s ability to deal with the consequences.

      More than 60 per cent of Britons are now either “very worried” or “somewhat worried” that there will be an economic downturn in the next two years with the majority of the electorate now expressing doubts over the Government’s ability to deal with such a crisis.

      The poll also puts the Tories slightly ahead of Labour on the issue of economic competence.

      A third – 33 per cent – of those polled said Tory leader David Cameron was now more likely to run Britain’s economy well compared to 32 per cent who supported Mr Brown.

      Before the 2005 General Election, 49 per cent of people backed Labour to manage the economy well compared to 27 per cent for the Tories and management of the economy was previously seen as Labour’s strongest electoral card.

      Mr Cameron is this week on a high-profile trip to Washington during which he is expected to meet George W Bush as Mr Brown desperately tries to deal with the fallout from Labour’s latest fundraising scandal.

      Last night, a senior Conservative source said: “This is one of the most dramatic polling turnarounds in recent political history. It can be dated precisely from our successful conference. But we are not complacent – there is still a long way to go.”

      According to Mr King, the professor of Government at Essex University, if the results of the opinion poll were repeated in a general election, it would certainly lead to the Tories being the biggest party in Parliament, probably with an overall majority.

      “Either way David Cameron would probably become Prime Minister,” he said.


  2. As reported in this morning’s online Gazette, Doug Bruce is going to Denver.

    My predictions:

    1) He won’t get one piece of legislation passed, no matter how long he serves.

    2) He’ll further deepen the divide between Republicans and Democrats, pushing out any hope for compromise on legislation that really matters.

    3) He’ll constantly be in the Denver press and media (much like is currently the case in Colorado Springs) but unlike Colorado Springs, which adores him, the Denver press will turn brutal towards him.

    4) He’ll get re-elected in November of 2008 but as voters discover his disrespect for subordinates, abusive language towards women, and belittling of everyone, he will be turned out in 2010.

    Stay tuned, at least it will be entertaining.  

    1. As a Democrat I welcome him with open arms.

      With his ego, divisive personality, extreme politics and his desire for self promotion he will do nothing but further damage the image of Republican’s in this state.

      He will be a nightmare for leadership and Wadhams. Have fun boys, your monster is coming to the big city.  

    2. I’m not aware of legislators who are actively working to lessen the divide between Rs and Ds.  Item (2)

      The legislators I’m familiar with love being in the press, and even bad/controversial press seems welcome.  Item (3)

      There is little or no accountability in our system.  Voters do not tend to punish or unelect legislators for poor performance.  Item (4)

      Given the legislation that rises to the top of the heap and does pass (e.g., smoking ban in casinos, regulation of physical therapy for animals, presumption that all cancers among firemen are job related, etc.), having a legislator who can’t pass anything seems like a good thing from where I sit. Item (1)

      I think people don’t like Doug Bruce because he asks the basic question that’s completely foreign to government’s allocation of resources — “You have asked for more tax money.  Can you prove that your agency actually needs the additional money?  If we give your agency money, what agency should we cut back?”

      1. I think people don’t like Doug Bruce because he asks the basic question that’s completely foreign to government’s allocation of resources — “You have asked for more tax money.  Can you prove that your agency actually needs the additional money?

        And has Bruce ever responded to a clear credible answer of why an agency needs more money with an ok? Every? Just once?

    3. …but as voters discover his disrespect for subordinates, abusive language towards women, and belittling of everyone, he will be turned out in 2010.

      Since when has any of this been negative for a Republican?

    4.    Mike May should acknowledge his limitations, and in particular, his occasional RINO-like qualities, and step down as House GOP leader to allow the Republican caucus to elect a true conservative as their new leader.

        As for the Denver media being brutal, I tend to doubt it.  They won’t fawn over Bruce like that right wing propaganda organ, the Gazette, did but the Denver media will see Bruce for what he is:  a useful idiot who says interesting things that make for good political news stories.

        BTW, did he ever get his mail order bride from Russia?

        1. I’d love to have had Radford in the state legislature.

          Hunter is not a terrible candidate, but I have to admit I’ve been put off by her equivocation on the minimum wage initiative, and more recently her insensitivity toward the racial undertones of the human trafficking law, and spreading of rhetoric that openly mocked those concerned about it.  She’s no Doug Bruce, to her credit, but it’s hard to get excited about it; and I can’t take solace in working for a truly exciting candidate like Morse this time around.

  3. This is from Jon Caldara’s most recent e-blast:

    The next Ann Coulter, but maybe a bit better looking: Our own Jessica Corry finds herself in the company of Newt Gingrich, Ann Coulter, Robert Novak and other writers who regularly contribute to Human Events. Check out her first column on the media’s reports of Colorado’s out-of-control hate crimes . For those male readers ready to start hitting on the “next Ann Coulter,” you should know Jessica is expecting her second child, rumored to be fathered by her husband Rob. But if the kid comes out bald w ith a beard, like the first kid…

    1. The next Ann Coulter, but maybe a bit better looking…For those male readers ready to start hitting on the “next Ann Coulter…

      Lord knows that looks are the most important thing a female pundit needs. [snark]

  4. Did anyone see this article in yesterday’s RMN?


    Apparently, CU is considering banning smoking (outdoor, indoor use is already banned) on university property.  Presumably that would include streets, sidewalks, dorm rooms.

    The Regents took a vote of students — something the legislature did not do when they banned smoking in bars, restaurants, and more recently casinos — and found 51% favored banning ALL tobacco use.

    Seems like it’s not a stretch to expect to see a legislator propose a ban of all tobacco use on any public property — streets, sidewalks, in your car driving on a public highway.

    Seems silly, but it sure looks like we’re headed for the day when folks can go to jail for tobacco use/possession.  While I don’t smoke, this sure seems like the poster child of excessive government involvement in personal matters.

    1. Carrigan is off his rocker on this one. I don’t  know who’s advising him but this makes no sense from a policy or political perspective. Good intentions but this is a step too far and unenforceable.  

    1. that CPols is anti-Jared. My best advice to readers is this: It is a blog, people will post their own private agendas here at will. If you don’t want to read the diatribes, then skip them, I do.

        1. I think censorship is at root the anthesis of liberalism. And this is internal fighting too – they’re mad about which Democrat Jason favors. The last thing we need is a quest for “philosophical purity” in our party – that’s what is killing the Repubs.

          1. I can’t figure out which wrong assumption to try to correct. Maybe you are seeing something in the comments, but I hope you are not talking about the story itself.

            Nobody is ripping Jason a new anything. The story suggests he is neither legally nor ethically incorrect.

            I don’t know what candidate Jason supports. If he is the author of certain stories, then I think I know a candidate he opposes, but even then it seems more about the campaign than the candidate.

            If he supports the candidate endorsed by the SEIU, that would not make me mad. I think that candidate would make a fantastic member of Congress. I see reasons to like all of the candidates, and can respect people no matter what their choice.

            There is not a word in the story about philosophical purity.

            I don’t know in what way you believe any of the candidates in question are philosophically impure, or why that would be a good thing if they were.

            And finally, “philosophical purity” is not killing the Republican Party. The demand for blind loyalty to corrupt and incompetent party leadership, rather than loyalty to core party values, is killing them.

            Something to ponder: Reagan won the center, but he did not do it by being a centrist.

        2. I just don’t have the time to read every post. So I read those that interest me. I don’t lie in CD2 so my interest in that race is purely academic: who is running and when we actually get into it, I’ll be interested to see who does well at the various steps of the nomination process.

        3. I like ColPols because, unlike a site like SquareState, it isn’t just liberals talking to each other.  No matter what the bias of Cpols, all kinds of views get posted here. Lefites and righties can both reach middle of the roaders on a site like this and present their cases to those who aren’t locked into a particular view or candidate already.  

    2. Thanks for feretting this out.

      I never gave it much thought about the ethics and disclosures that ought to occur with blogs.

      My personal view is that blogs like ColPols are good places to understand how others think about issues and what others feel is important.  I don’t really care who runs the blog; the blog is only meaningful if it encourages exchanges of different points of view.

      I see that folks regularly use ColPols to bash others because they seem to have some sort of political axe to grind (Polis, Lamborn, Wadhams, etc) and appear to feel better when they call a political opponent an asshole.  I try not to do that (and appologize if I have) and encouage others to rise above that.

  5. Rove lies. It’s not that complicated. He lies.

    For years, all the (liberal, left wing, tree hugging) pundit-types used to gobble up Rove’s lies. He’s still doing it. But now, reporters seem genuinely surprised that Rove would lie about the Iraq war. I should say, lie again about the Iraq war.

    Actually, media and righties, you should know by now, really you should know, that if Rove says something, it’s probably not true. He’s got no power now — and he’s still playing you for a bunch of patsies.

    Don’t you get it? You’re being played for fools!

    h/t Americablog

        1. Irrational hatred? What’s irrational about justifiable anger over attempts at historical revisionism, especially when it’s so self serving? Clearly, the facts are disputed, even by Andy Card!

          This goes to the issue of the media not doing it’s job. If it were truly a liberal media, there’d be a ton more hard questions being asked. The press has been a disgrace in this country ever since it was deregulated by Reagan.

          I am firmly in the camp that for our form of government to be effective, the MSM cannot be homogenized.

            1. Brave Sir Robin does not like to have his rants questioned nor does he like to be concerned with facts.  He is just like the typical liberal who just lobs bombs out there and when someone questions them, calls them ignorant, racist, bigoted, or anything else they can think of.

              And to answer your question, liberals think everything should be regulated.  Just look at how well it has worked in Venezuela and Russia.  Who needs freedom when you can have government control everything!!!

              1. When you do question my rants, attempt to do so with more than insults. If you can provide specific instances of “lobbing bombs” without being backed up by facts, I’m happy to help out. I’m certainly not against doing research, as far back in time as is necessary to provide both historical and factual commentary to support my positions.

                Indeed, I enjoy havings my rants questioned. Often, I learn things. I’m especially a soft touch for posts like abraham’s below. abraham clearly has a warm and human aspect about himself, and I appreciate that immensely.

                Can you substantiate the claim that “liberals” think everything should be regulated? I’m not sure what you mean. Perhaps you could educate the readers of this blog, myself included, what regulations are bad, and which are unnecessary. Now that would be a debate worth having. I’m up for it.

                More specifically, perhaps you could educate me, and others here, on the liberals who over regulated Russia and Venezuela.

                It’s funny, but this whole thread began by my taking exception to government (represented through and by police in this instance) tasering an individual who dared not conform to the regulation of drivers license and license plate. Do you not see the confusion caused by your last sentence?

                You and your friend laughing boy are quite welcome to respond to any and all of my rants. I only ask that you both do so with an informed and well researched response. It gets quite tedious swatting mosquitos all day.

                1. after our last bout I should be nicer to you because you did take me on with facts when I questioned you.  I thoroughly enjoyed our bout and should not be so hard on you anymore.  

                  I dont have the time now to answer your post, but let me get back later with a full response.

                  1. I’ve been impressed with so much of SR’s thoughts and passion, and I’ve complimented him on it.  But he can’t seem to hold it together if you call him on something that’s a mistake or untrue.

                    Hey, I pull stuff out of my ass all the time, but it’s pretty important to me to issue a Mea Culpa if I’m wrong.

                    Sir Robin, can’t you see that I like talking to you?  Why do you insist on calling me the antichrist or making jokes about my wife when we’re debating?

                    I’m quite sure you wouldn’t do it in person – why can’t you hold it together in this setting?

    1. The guy didn’t die.  He wasn’t even injured.  If you don’t want to get tased, just do what the officer says and work in out later.

      Why didn’t he just give him his license?

      1. LB, you just have a thick skull. As David correctly points out, the use of tasers have led to death. In this particular episode, within 45 seconds the person is on the ground. “He wasn’t even injured?” From your position, it would appear that you know what went on in the car. Can’t you see that the approach of this officer of the law, you know, the “to serve and protect” guy was over the top? If not, you’re more dangerous than I thought.

        1. I read the media accounts from Austin.

          You implied that someone was killed for speeding for 5 MPH over a posted limit.

          The incident is from 2006, and the APD apologized (what a joke).

          All that idiot had to do was give the officer his license and insurance.  Why did he fail to do this?  If you act aggressively toward an officer and you are within 21 feet of him/her, tasing is probably the best thing that’s going to happen to you.

          1. First I’m a fool, then a liar. Wasn’t it you asking for civility just recently? I’ll set aside that you called the driver an idiot….it seems to be a habit of yours.

            The implication of the original post was:

            (I wanna be very specific here so that you get it)

            1. An individual was tasered during a non-violent speeding and license plate issue. There was no physical resistance from the individual that was tasered. The officer was never threatened. The police over reacted.

            2. Tasering has led to deaths. Had the individual died, an extreme injustice would have taken place. The officer had no way of knowing the state of health of this victim of police brutality.

            3. Google police brutality, and get some facts regarding the increase, across the country, of illegal search and seizures, death by taser, and shooring deaths of innocent individuals.

            It’s irrelevant whether it was 2006, because it is happening more and more. It’s also irelevant that the police apologized.  

            1. This:

              “The idea that people have died by Taser

              for going 5 miles over the speed limit?”

              Does not jive with this:

              “Had the individual died, an extreme injustice would have taken place.”

              Yes.  Had a meteor hit the moron who chose to argue with a cop instead of just turning over his information as he was required to do by law it would have been tragic as well.

              Focus, SR, focus.

              I would suggest that you know very little about law enforcement training.  Maybe a ridealong with DPD would be enlightening for you.  Let me know if you’d like some information about it.

              1. This reminds me of one summer when I taught eight year olds camping skills.

                The intro the the posting was not a run on sentence to the opening line. Get it? The implied reasoning was:

                In the heading to the post, the reader is asked to keep in mind that people have died being tasered. Then, the next line in the body of the post, expresses astonsihment that this individual would be tasered for being pulled over for a speeding and/or l;icense plate violation…..5 miles over the limit at that!

                Now go do your homework, and come back with statistics that show police brutality, unreasonable search and seizures, illegal wiretapping, and killing of innocent Americans by the police are NOT on the rise.

                Why is it that you hate American freedoms so much? You sound as if you’d prefer living in a gestapo like police state.


                1. I was getting worried – it took you a whole 8 hours after being shown up (again) to whip out the good old Nazi accusation.

                  You’re as sharp as ever, you poor, angry man.

                  1. I’m not sure what you mean by “shown up”. Again, simply by saying something is so doesn’t make it so. You’re the one quick to support and defend the gestapo like tactics seen on this video. They were heavy handed and inappropriate. They should be illegal. Are you willing to decry these taser attacks, or do you support the tasering, and sometimes fatal tasering of Americans by police unnecessarily?

                    You’re as stupid as ever. I’m starting to think LB actually stands for Lame Brain.

                  2. You’re going to run away from the real issue here, right? I’m disappointed in you. The rise in police brutality, illegal search and seizures, illegal wiretapping….remember?

                    Your reference to eight hours shouldn’t go without a response. I walked three dogs for 13 miles today. It was wonderful! Ok, so one of the dogs was your wife. Did she say she was Christmas shopping? LOL

                    1. I truly feel sorry for you. By the way, my wife would eat your lunch.

                      Your question about tasering was worth delving into, but you had to bookend it with 4th grade insults.

                      Yes, I think tasers have saved thousands of people that would have otherwise been killed by police.

                      Have a good night.  I hope you wake up tomorrow a more peaceful, happy person.

                    2. I certainly don’t need or desire it. And, save your hugs and kisses bullshit for your wife. She needs it. She told me so:-)

                    3. You’re ignorant, and the number of people like you is what scares me.

                      Have you done your homework? Otherwise, off to bed with no dinner, Boy.

    2. My brother is a fireman.  I used to be a policeman.  I asked my brother one day, “Jeff when we both show up at an emergency, why do people welcome you into their home and spit on me?”

      The answer is policemen are the mechanism by which society holds its members accountable for their actions.  People don’t want to be held accountable for their actions.  Whether it’s speeding, possession of controlled substances, domestic violence, DUI,etc.  

      In my experience, the first reaction was always “I didn’t do it.”

      The second reaction was often “I can’t afford to go to jail, pay a fine, pay higher insurance rates, or deal with the downstream costs of my behavior.  You need to cut me some slack.”

      With some, the reaction was frequently “You’re picking on me cause I’m …..” [fill in your favorite oppressed group]

      With the ones that required physical action, the reaction often started with “You’re an asshole.  All cops are assholes.  Your mom is an asshole.  I don’t have to take this.”

      As a cop I came to understand that more laws mean more things are criminalized, and criminalizing behaviors has a downstream impact on citizens and the criminal justice system.  For example, I wrote loads of tickets for expired inspection stickers that are now a thing of the past.  Some legislator somewhere decided it would be a good thing for society to have a vehicle safety inspection law.  Those tickets probably increased lots of folks insurance rates, and, I had to fight with my share of outraged citizens (like the Tazered guy).  At the end of the day that law might have improved safety, but imposed other costs on society.  

      1. .

        I’ve had one individual in a group of uniformed officers vandalize my car as I drove by.

        I pulled over to talk the the guy,

        and the gaggle surrounded and threatened me.  

        I’ve had an undercover officer hit my car in traffic,

        speed away,

        then come back, pull me over, and write me a ticket.  

        A friend was beaten up by a couple of cops, apparently for kicks.  

        No arrest, just picking on a weak guy.  


        Why do folks want to become police officers ?

        Mostly because its a steady job,

        and contributes to the community.  

        But for some, there’s also the opportunity to abuse people under the color of the law.  

        I don’t want to live in anarchy, or Iraq,

        and a robust police force is a necessary component of an orderly society.  

        I’m glad they are there.

        But if you spent time on a police force, you saw what I’m talking about.  


          1. .

            during the period there was no Chief of Police

            (technically Jim Munger was filling the position,

            but nobody was providing leadership or accountability in the Department.)  

            1. we end up with tragedies like you describe…or worse, like Iraq. Thanks for answering my question. I have consistently admired your informed and principled positions.

  6. From the new Newsweek:

    Nearly three years after Paul Wolfowitz resigned as deputy Defense secretary and six months after his stormy departure as president of the World Bank-amid allegations that he improperly awarded a raise to his girlfriend-he’s in line to return to public service. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has offered Wolfowitz, a prime architect of the Iraq War, a position as chairman of the International Security Advisory Board, a prestigious State Department panel, according to two department sources who declined to be identified discussing personnel matters. The 18-member panel, which has access to highly classified intelligence, advises Rice on disarmament, nuclear proliferation, WMD issues and other matters. “We think he is well suited and will do an excellent job,” said one senior official.

    The opening on the panel came up when Fred Thompson (yep, that Fred Thompson) left to run for president.

  7. I have been gone for a few days, on my return – to my great sadness – I learned that Sam Williams had passed away.

    If you will indulge me for a moment, I would like to share some feelings – perhaps a catharsis for me.

    I had the chance to work with Sam on several pieces of legislation during his career, to include his legislation that created the Summit Stage.

    But that is not what I remember about him, and probably because I served in the US Army and did my tour in Viet Nam.

    Sam was a retired Lt. Colonel and had a distinguished career as a professional soldier.  Years ago, and I think Sam may have been the Minority Leader, the House did a “tribute” to the veterans who were serving in the House.  The various veterans wore their old uniforms.

    I was in the House gallery when Sam walked on the floor in his Class A uniform, with his decorations, his bloused paratrooper jump boots and his Green Beret.

    No one dared to make a comment because it was clear that no one had any experience to come close to Sam’s.

    While he had incredible military credentials, that is not what I remember about him.

    I remember a man of honor and integrity, who was always optimistic and willing to look beyond the current vagaries of petty politics and personalities – in both parties – and to take the steps to move forward.

    I am a better person for having been able to work with Sam.  Colorado is better place for having Sam work for the State as a Representative and then with his community works following that.

    Thank you, Sam, for sharing part of your life with all of us.

    1. I sent information on Sam Williams’ death to the Summit Daily News but I haven’t seen anything in the paper about him, in spite of his service to Summit County and the region, and his service on the Breckenridge Town Council.

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

38 readers online now


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