CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
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*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
August 21, 2013 06:45 PM UTC
79 Comments
Clearly, no lefty media is needed to make these folks look like maroons.
Don't you want to hear how we've got it all wrong and she has lots of black friends? Have the trolls all clocked out for the day?
We may need to disclose the existence of our time travel legislative recruitment program. When the bench gets thin, we grab a few good prospects from the 1850's and run them in the present day. It usually works out fine.
I've been predicting a good old fashioned racist crackup with good Sen. Marble for quite some time. She harbors every peabrained prejudice there is.
We elected a black president. There is no more racism in America. Didn’t Sen. Marble get the memo?
There is only one question I care about, and that is whether Elliot Fladen defends Marble or throws her under the bus.
I'm not going to defend her remarks. What she said was simply not wise and I'll leave it at that. I will say though that I'd be very surprised if Vicki knew these remarks had racist connotations although that would be obvious to many political observers. My hope here is that she learns from this ordeal that she is about to go through and emerges a more cautious person from it as I have always thought that she is one of the nicer people in politics.
Ahha — the old "Paula Dean defense" — a mighty popular gambit of late amoung our
bigoted. . . er,ignorant. . . er, "nicer people" demographic. Good old nice, nice, really nice Vicki was just sharing some of her nice favorite old family recipes to help those poor, sick darkies get some nice home-cooked nourishment, right??!!?? Nice, right!!??!!(BTW, how's Paula's diabetes working out for her — I mean, not being black or poor, she's probably doing fine, huh?? Any word on Paula's BBQ-induced sickle-cell anemia?? Or, is it just that "black race" that's genetically predisposed to these fried-chicken diseases — let's ask Vicki for the science, OK??)
Vicki couldn't possibly know anything about the connotations of the spew from her pie-hole, because she's so damn nice?? Really?? Aye ca-fucking-rumba, dude — really??
Is there really so very much money in defending the indefensible — or, is that just your current super-hero calling??
No, I actually believe Elliot here. Growing up in rural south Georgia, I've met a large number of racists in my time. None of them understand that they are racists. They maintain this whole bizarre alternate world view, in which everyone understands that these things are true, and everyone is just in political correctness self-denial, or is afraid of social retribution from minorities whining unfairly… in fact, I have met plenty of racists who would pride themselves on being friendly and kind.
In Sen. Marbles had understood that her comments were racist, they'd never have been said. We get massive screw-ups like this precisely because sometimes even people who work in politics for a living are susceptible to the same racism self-defense reactions as their peers, and let themselves be fooled.
I agree with your analysis,cd……It is about what the sociologists call a "reference group." If you spend most of your time with people who are like you and agree with you, then you do not get any negative feedback or any way to reevaluate what you are saying. Senator Marbles spends her time, I assume, with people who think just like she does…people who are not African-America or educated. I am sure that Senator Marbles does not have a mean bone in her body…..she does not realize that her remarks are racist. One question is: Will she learn from this encounter?
My bet is absolutely not…and that right now, she is being reassured by her "reference group" that the others are just victims of "political correctness." And, I don't even have to listen to boyles to know that right now that is what he is saying.
I know. What a load of mealy-mouthed evasion. Marble evinces every backward ass stereotype known to man. If the "connotations" are not apparent to her, that is only because she is steeped in a backward racist quasi-militia-fringe culture up there in NoCo.
Disappointing, Elliot. If you want to clean up the GOP, you need to start with Marble not defend her.
Damn. And Marbles probably is still wondering why people were offended. "What did I say?"
First time I've seen Senator Rhonda Fields in action. She's effective. No wonder there's a recall committee organizing against her.
Vicki is a very nice person that doesn't always understand the full impact of what she is saying. I've always liked her personally and I just hope she learns some significant lessons from the this ordeal she is about to go through.
Nice has nothing to do with it. Most racists aren't monsters. If she really doesn't understand why the things she said are offensive and racist it's because racism is as natural to her as breathing. The first thing she needs to learn is that people see her as a racist because that's what she is.
It doesn't matter whether your stereotype of those who don't look pretty much like you and come from a similar background is positive or negative, whether you like many of "them" or are generally kind or nice to "them". It's the fact that while you see what you consider your own kind as individuals who aren't all one way or the other, you see 'them" as a block who are like this or who do that that makes you a racist. Plenty of ordinary nice people are too deeply racist to have a clue that they're racist at all. Sounds like she's one of them.
Using an offensive connotation a single time in the manner Vicki did is hardly sufficient evidence to summarily declare her a racist.
She's an elected official, El. Elected to represent people she's too stupid to understand she offended (as well as the folks who look and think like her.) As a LAWYER, El, you know stupidity is not an excuse.
Oh wait, that's ignorance. But still, defending her because she's ignorant and/or stupid makes you look lamer than usual, Fladen. Back down. Save yourself. The French, sauve qui peut.
I agree that her remarks were not bright. At all. However there is a major difference between saying something that isn't bright and being a racist.
What is that major difference, EF?
. . . IOKIYAR ??
(. . . that'd be my guess.)
As a general rule, intent.
And you would verify that, how?
Maybe Rhonda Fields could have verified that if she had simply asked Vicki what she meant? 😉
WHAT, EF….you are now outlining the special considerations that should be used in approaching an ignoramus, white country girl type. She should be approached gently and given the chance to explain herself…and treated very carefully.
It is those uppity blackies who are sooooo aggressive…no wonder poor little Vicki poo had the vapors…..
I would like you to keep talking, but it is rare that those on this blog really get a chance to hear how the "other half" really thinks…….these are the attitudes behind the ability of the repubs in Congress to effectively emasculate what is left of the Obama presidency.
Carry on, capt'n
It seems pretty clear from the audio that Vicki didn't realize the gravity of her remarks and how much offense she could cause. It also seems pretty clear that she was not acting maliciously.
In those circumstances the appropriate thing to do would have been to have had a private chat with her (or have had legislative leadership do that). NOT to have publicly humiliated her like this. And if Rhonda was concerned with doing the right thing, she could have obtained the above verification at that time.
So now it's Field's fault?!? You have taken being the official apologist for righties on all racial matters to a whole new level.
Let's see what you're really saying. The African American, one of the objects of the offensive remarks, should be more sensitive to the plight of the poor. ignorant white lady, the real wronged party in all this, who made public statements that demonstrate the viewing of African Americans through the prism of racist stereotypes, not to mention sheer idiocy. How could Fields be so unfair to such a nice ignorant white lady? Shame on Fields. Let's all show our support for the poor victim.
You really are a maroon, Eliot.
Marble's remarks are solely the fault of Marble. Field's handling of those remarks though are all her own doing. She handled the remarks poorly.
Even the DP (scarcely a hotbed of progressivism) is saddened by teh stupid of the Vic(tim) Marbles person and El is stil here, still defending her right to be stupid and saying that Rhonda Fields was being all meangirl and could have been nicer to teh stupid girl.
You're sounding more and more like a preteen in your arguments, Fladen. Go away.
I am NOT defending Marble's remarks. I am simply saying that she made them likely without knowing how offensive they would be and that Fields handled the situation poorly
The point here is that racism is normally not malicious. Very few racists say the things they say because they sit down and think "How can I offend some minorities today?" It's still offensive, and has no place at all in policy discussions by elected officials. When it happens, well done to those who stand up and make it clear that it's not acceptable!
If it wasn't malicious, Fields could have handled it better. A private chat without embarassing Vicki nationally would have been sufficient.
Rep Fields did not embarass Rep. Marble, Rep. Marble embarrassed herself. Privately taking Rep. Marble aside would not have been enough because disrespecting entire groups is not a private matter. So often public silence is taken as agreement or at least lack of offense. After all, "no one said anything about it" must mean it was acceptable. When it is unacceptable, it is laudable to have the courage to speak out against it.
Being racist isn't a crime. Intent has nothing to do with it. It's like saying a person isn't deluded unless that person intends to be deluded.
Not everything is a legal matter to be viewed through the lens of the rules of courts of law or what is or isn't contained in this or that statute. Niceness and intent have zip to do being a racist. Lumping whole groups of people together into stereotypes based on race is racism. The unconscious racism of nice people is the most insidious and pervasive kind.
BC, please understand that I do agree with everything you have said on this issue.
However, maroon is a color. I think you mean to use the word moron.
Thanks, Dame Edna, but I meant maroon. It's a real term that is used for someone who is kind of both a moron and a fool.
Just for the record..I think the term "maroon" being used instead of moron was a construct first used by Bugs Bunny.
Intent is never necessary for one to be racist. It isn't simply a condition of antipathy or animus toward other races; it's primarily one of ignorance.
So – I was prepared to suggest the apologetic phrasing would be something like I am sorry you or anyone would be offended by my comments.
Mr. Fladen has beat me to it. Elliot – the obvious implication of your weak defense (not intended as assessment of your lawyerly skill or lack of) is that Ms. Marbles problem lies in not understanding the impact of her words. That she may from time to time say unwise things but upon reflection, and perhaps a short learning curve, she will stop saying as she becomes more cautious.
In other words- she can blow the whistle without actually speaking her mind. Or her heart. Or her colon. Or wherever and whatever it is that is the source of her unwise, less than cautious words.
Her words suggest she is racist. Racialist maybe even. But you would defend her because she appears to be "nice." I understand your desire for niceness in politics, but I would prefer fairness. Equality. Respect. Intelligence. A passionate love of our country and all it's inhabitants and all that it stands for.
FWIW – I am glad she said what she believes. I hope she is consistently so honest. At least now I know how to lose those unwanted pounds- I just got to move to Mexico and eat whatever the locals are eating.
Look, all she's done is make the perfectly logical point that the higher rate of poverty among blacks is due in part to their increased diabetes rates caused by their love of barbecue and fried chicken. It would be a shame if oversensitivity of others detracts from the seriousness of her point. I am sure we all look forward to hearing Rep. Marble's "real solutions" to these issues.
(Said with heavy sarcasm, BTW.)
Thank you for clarifying. Your statement is indistinguishable from what will be on the radio all day, today. Vicki will be the "victim" by the end of the day..and there will be demands for Rep. Fields to apologize….and this will all be added fuel to a recall effort.
Apparently she didn't catch this latest story either? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/09/mexico-obesity_n_3567772.html
More important to me is what her district looks like and does her idiotic remarks make it possible to take it in 2016?It looks like her district included all of Broomfield, which went for Obama in 2012 by 5.8 percent. Of course the rest of her district is pretty rural, farming and ex-urbs along I-25. She did win by a bit in 2012 but now she has this baggage so we'll see how she holds up.
I freaking love Rhonda Fields. In a perfect world, she'd be running and winning against Mike Coffman.
Why can't we all just eat some [a lot of] fried chicken and drink some [a lot of] beer and get along?
Time/place (except for beer as I don't drink alcohol unless it is a religious occasion)?
No booze. You are not invited to my party.
Fine.
It's gone national
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/22/1233044/-Colorado-Republican-says-fried-chicken-causes-black-and-Latino-poverty
That's because everybody is being mean. There is clearly nothing racist about shoving an entire group of people into one stereotype box. Fladen to the rescue!
Oh and Elliot? maliciousness isn't a requirement, merely an option, in the definition of racism:
It says usually, not always. As I said, niceness is irrelevant.
Boy this came through weird.
"If it wasn't malicious, Fields could have handled it better. A private chat without embarassing Vicki nationally would have been sufficient. "
One of the advantageous that right wing radio dominence affords republicans is that they can spin talking points to their base…make sure that they are all on the same page…. However, because little or no diviation from talking points is tolerated among callers, the repubs don't always have a way to "test out" responses among those who are not die hard right wingers……EF's remarks here could allow the repubs to test out responses and be prepared to "spin" any negative comments about Vicki….who can be painted as the victim….of Senator Fields….
Fascinating.
Nah, I think Elliot just thinks Rep. Fields should suffer fools lightly, particularly if they are Republicans, a target-rich environment.
I would have posted this higher in reply to Elliot, but that subthread ran out of 'reply' buttons.
"If it wasn't malicious, Fields could have handled it better. A private chat without embarassing Vicki nationally would have been sufficient. "
Congrats, Elliot. That's the lowest I've seen you sink. You make the worst of the trolls look noble and principled by comparison.
EF, why, in your humble opinion, is Rep. Fields not allowed to express her feelings on Sen. Marble's idiotic comments?
I can assure you that Senator Marble has never considered anyone's feelings when she has been offended by the reasonable comments of Democrats on the Senate floor.
She is allowed to express whatever opinion she wants to express in whatever manner she wants to express it. However, it is appropriate to hold her accountable if she experesses her opinion in a poor manner. That is what happened here. She had the opportunity to handle this with class, by speaking privately with Vicki or having legislative leadership do the same. She could have even briefly expressed her disagreement in public and had further words in private.
She chose to do neither. Instead, she chose to publicly and nationally humiliate a political rookie for what was obviously an unintentional mistake. That was her call but it also speaks to her character.
"She chose to do neither. Instead, she chose to publicly and nationally humiliate a political rookie for what was obviously an unintentional mistake. That was her call but it also speaks to her character."
EF is referring to Senator Fields. Absolutely beautifully done, EF. This should be a textbook case in "damage control" in one of those pr classes up at the newly redesigned
media school at CU.
Let me be perfectly clear. I am focusing on how EF is spinning what Representative Marbles did and playing to racial sterotypes, playing to that of the "pushy Black woman." EFs characterization, IMHO, is far worse, because it is deliberte and he is educated.
Now, on to this new software. I keep getting a red dotted line…for what purpose I don't have a clue….I also was surprised when the reply key disappeared mid-thread/
I
Are you suggesting that one's race gives you a pass to humiliate somebody for a misstep? Seriously?
Marble says something offensive, but Fields is the one in the wrong….
Keep going, Elliott; there may be one or two people out there who haven't figured out you're nothing but a spineless, egg-sucking GOP lapdog. At least Fields has character.
You are missing it – there are TWO seperate actions:
1) Marble's comments which I am not defending; AND
2) Field's handling of Marble's comments.
You're saying Marble made a simple, thoughtless mistake, but that Fields' response is the one that spoke to her character. You're being disingenuous if you think anyone could read what you're saying and not realize you're a spineless, egg-sucking GOP lapdog.
Curmudgeon, any argument that Vicki knew that what she was saying was offensive would have serious proof problems. But there is no doubt that Fields intended to do exactly what she did.
In case you haven't noticed the argument isn't about whether or not Marble knew that what she was saying was racist or whether or not she had ill intent. She said it because that's what she thinks. It offended people, including Fields, because what she thinks is clearly racist whether she knows it or not.
She may very well also be too stupid to realize that her own thoughts on the subject shouldn't be voiced because they are so racist that they will offend people. I'm perfectly open to believing that a member of the legislature is, indeed, that stupid. Especially a conservative Republican. My State House Rep, Kathleen Conti, got elected and she's a complete nitwit. Thought taxes were much lower under Reagan and soaring ever since.
As for your placing any share of any degree of blame on Fields for the position Marble finds herself in, that's offensive, even despicable, yes despicable, beyond belief. We've always known you were a knee jerk apologist on race issues but what you are saying about Fields here is really beyond the pale. Disgusting. Shameful. Beneath contempt.
Bluecat, your position is that a person who has been offended can react in whatever manner the deem fit so long as they are a minority. That is in itself a racist position and quite frankly disgusting.
Rep. Fields could have chosen to any numbers of ways to handle Marble's remarks. She could have spoken with Marble in private about them. She could have had legislative leadership speak privately. She could have asked for clarification as to what Marble meant. Instead of doing any of those things she decided to publicly humiliate Marble for an unintentional comment. That was her choice, she alone was responsible for it, and can be judged for it by a person of any race/ethnicity. To suggest otherwise would again be racist of you.
typos:
they deem fit
chosen any number
Lovely strawman ya got there, EF.
Clarification?
and Marble could have chosen any number of ways to get her point across. She CHOSE to use racially inflammatory language. You are somehow implying that it is OK for Marble to BE racially insensitive and that those who are offended by it shouldn't call her out on it.
Here are three truths…
1. Vickie Marble is a racially ignorant and insensitive human.
2. Rhonda Fields justifiably challenged Marbles' remarks in a public setting, just like the one in which they were made.
3. You are full of shit.
Thanks, Duke, you covered it – now I don't have to write my comment.
I have read Field's words and there is nothing any reasonable person could possibly take away from them that reflects poorly on her. Nothing at all. The same cannot be said for Marble's.
Your choice in interpreting Marble's words as generously as possible while bending over backwards to find fault in Field's where no reasonable person would and none of the Rs quoted in recent articles has, speaks for itself and what it says about you is deeply revolting.
There really is no more point in carrying on this discussion with you than there would be in trying to explain to Marble what her words, clearly reflecting her thoughts, actually mean.
I'm truly surprised. I never would have thought you capable of sinking so low, so much lower than even the usual apologist R spokespersons. Eeeww!
That certainly is not my position. As usual you just made that up. No reading of my words could possibly translate into the words you created and attributed to me. As usual.
Your arguments are unifomly dishonest because you're a coward. That's the crux of it.You only argue against stuff you make up and falsely attribute to your opponent because you don't have the stones for honest debate. Pathetic.
Elliott, you're really better off just ignoring me. Any argument that you are not a spineless, egg-sucking GOP lapdog has serious proof problems, as evidenced in this thread. I used to take you seriously, as I do anyone I consider a Moderate, or a true Conservative, who's just trying to get by until the GOP becomes something other than the pack of raving idiots it's become. No longer.
It doesn't matter why you've chosen this particular incident to show just how much dignity and self-respect you can sacrifice in the name of party loyalty, or whatever the hell you're looking to gain. You could have just stuck with defending Ms. Marble; that's to be expected. But you've turned a corner, and these arguements will follow you.
Trying to paint Ms. Fields as the bad guy in this shows that you're willing to give up any regard for truth or dignity, if there's something you think you can gain.
(NOT INTENDED AS LEGAL ADVICE FOR ANY PROSPECTIVE CLIENTS)
Marble's humiliation came from her actions–her words. Fields simply addressed the words. If that resulted in publicity and national humiliation, it was only because others recognized the ofensiveness of Marble's words. Too bad she doesn't see it herself.
Fields did a bit more than simply address the words. She went for the jugular and nationally humiliated somebody who unintentionally made offensive remarks. She could have handled things much more professionally.
EF, below are Rep. Fields words, recorded for posterity. I see no going for the jugular but instead an expression of the need to stick to the work of the task force. And that work should not include Sen. Marble's racist attitudes. You are wrong to paint Rep. Fields as the attacker.
"I will not engage in a dialogue where you are using these stereotypical references about African-Americans and chicken and food," Fields said to Marble. "I will not tolerate that. This is not what this committee is all about. … What we are trying to do is come up with meaningful solutions. This is not about eating chicken."
Her tone, and her choice to make that statement on the record when it could have been made in private make her handling of the situation less than professional.
Ahhh, the voice of white priveledge speaks. Bravo. It's not her words, it how she said them.
Right. Rep. Fields should not have spoken her mind in public. There are three reasons the Republicans are attacking someone calling out offensive remarks. 1. Rep. Fields is a Demoncrat. 2. She is a woman. 3. She is black. All are factors in the attack on Rep. Fields.
It would be great if those with "white priviledge" would call out such offensive remarks. And below is an interesting take on that. And note in this clip how the woman weighs the predictible "angry black woman" label she would get if she spoke up. However, that doesn't mean those without "white priviledge" should remain silent.
http://www.upworthy.com/one-easy-thing-all-white-people-could-do-that-would-make-the-world-a-better-place-5?g=3&c=upw1
Vicki Marble would make policy that affects us all based on her "unintentional racism". Thankfully, she is curtailed by being in the minority party. Regardless of her intent, what she said is wrong. Nothing short of Rhonda Fields strong rebuke will bring about any inkling that what she said and believes is wrong. That legislating based on ignorant notions is dangerous. Wake up EF, Rhonda did nothing wrong!
The funny part here is that the right wants to paint Vicki as the victim. This from the party of personal responsibility. All session, everything that came out of Vicki's mouth was centered on her belief in her personal responsibility and how we are all the products of our choices. Well, it is time for her to live by her choice to hold ignorant and racist beliefs. And not cry about it when she is called on it.
It is time the Right stop listening to their choir and live in the real world. One based on equity and truth. Not racism and bending the rules of science and fact for the sole purpose of personal gain. Or a twisted agenda of the Right's version of morality. A morality that has no basis in respect and love for your fellow humans.
I don't mind people defending/minimizing Marble's stupid statement. Big deal, that happens all the time. it's expected from any party to defend their members. But flipping it around and making Fields the villain for being offended by it… that's bullshit.
And BC, I was a maroon to correct you!
No you weren't. Not at all.