Chairman Call Distances Self From Unapologetic Sen. Marble

Sen. Vicki Marble (R).

Sen. Vicki Marble (R).

​(Bumped into Sunday by popular demand – Pols)

The Denver Post's Lynn Bartels follows up this week's biggest story in Colorado politics:

The chairman of the Colorado Republican Party says a state senator's "careless" remarks about minorities and their eating habits don't reflect the views of the state party…

"Sen. Marble's careless comments do not reflect the views of Republicans," GOP chairman Ryan Call said in a statement issued Thursday.

"Since the time of Abraham Lincoln, the GOP has a proud history of standing up for minorities, and we are committed to fighting for policies that ensure every American has the opportunity to succeed."

But as the Fort Collins Coloradoan's Patrick Malone reports, Sen. Vicki Marble herself sees nothing whatsoever to apologize for:

During a presentation Wednesday on economic disparities between races in Colorado, Marble said minorities such as blacks and Hispanics should be aware that they are at greater risk of certain genetic health problems that are made worse by their dietary preferences. She named barbecue and chicken as favorites of blacks, which drew an angry reaction from Fields.

“I think it’s funny when you show care and try to get down to the nuts and bolts of everything, and all of a sudden you’re a racist,” Marble said Thursday. “I did think about whether I should say what I said. But I thought, ‘If I don’t start this dialogue, who will?’ Nobody else is going to ask that trigger question: What about our diet? I went there because somebody had to start the dialogue.”

Marble had no apology to offer, although she concedes she could have worded things differently.

After the Republican primary in June of 2012, we took note of now-Sen. Marble's victory over the immeasurably more qualified and comparatively moderate GOP Rep. Glenn Vaad of Mead. Marble won that primary with the support of "Tea Party," "9/12" groups, Ken Buck, and perhaps most importantly for today's discussion, the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners. Locals warned us to watch for Marble to become "the new Dan Maes" due to her propensity for free-ranging, rambling monologues running the entire gamut of fringe conservative half-truths and conspiracy theories. Before this incident, Sen. Marble had raised eyebrows on numerous occasions for suddenly injecting a long tirade of blathering nonsense into an otherwise rational debate.

We commend GOP chairman Ryan Call for making no attempt to defend Sen. Marble's clearly indefensible comments. FOX 31's Eli Stokols reports in the video above, however, that other Republicans weren't willing to make a similar statement–perhaps recalling that Marble was elected with the support of the all-powerful Dudley Brown? But privately, there have to be some Republicans today wishing they had stood by Glenn Vaad.

128 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. DavidThi808 says:


    Maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill but it's an interesting adjective to use. It doesn't say that what Marble said was wrong, just that it should not have been voiced.

    • BlueCat says:

      To be fair it certainly was careless to let her ignorant streotypical racist thoughts fall out of her mouth in the form of out loud words in a public forum.  Even if that meanie Fields hadn't addressed those out loud public words out loud in the same public forum, even if Fields had been home with the flu, Marble would still be exactly where she finds herself as a result of that "unfortunate" slip so yeah, really careless.  

    • Duke Cox says:

      means what it says…couldn't care less….

      • langelomisterioso says:

        Precisely,though lately the GOP leadership has liooked like an NFl tryout camp for cornerbacks what with all the backpedaling going on. Folks like Marble always preface explanatory remarks with I didn't realize anyone would be offended or I didn't mean to offend meaning I didn't realize stereotypes are offensive. Probably wouldn't have stopped them from saying it only slightly rephrased.As someone else points out it does have the salubrious effect of allowing the aware voter just what's there.

      • GalapagoLarry says:

        Love people here who use their words full of care.

    • Same statement being made by Republicans in all of their "win over the voters" statements: it's not the idea that's bad, it's the messaging.

  2. notaskinnycook says:

    "Careless" now joins "misspoke" and "inartful" in the lexicon of "I said what I meant, but I didn't think I'd get in trouble for it.

  3. ClubTwitty says:

    CO Republicans: If the only example you can think of to show the GOP is inclusive, is a president from 145 years ago you might have a problem. 

  4. BlueCat says:

    At least no one in these news articles is saying that poor Marble should never have been treated so unfairly by Fields or that Fields is the one who should have been more sensitive, unlike Fladen whose comments concerning Fields have been so untterly revolting they leave me quite stunned. I knew he was an abject, knee jerk apologist but I was truly surprised to see him heading so deeply into blatant repugnant creep terriitory.

    • Davie says:

      You'll know the Apocalypse is upon us if we ever hear Elliot say something like: "Vicki is dumber than a lamp post, and darn proud of it!"

      • BlueCat says:

        Well, he's said it wasn't very smart. He  turns himself into a pretzel avoiding the obvious. Why wasn't it smart for this nice, not at all racist lady to say what she thinks if what she thinks is not at all racist

        But that's just the usual Elliot apologist tap dance. Annoying but nothing to get really angry over. What makes it so completely despicable is turning it on its head to paint Fields as mean and insensitive for publicly answering Marble's public remarks. Marble gets to spout ridiculous, stupid crap in public and must be understood and let off the hook while Fields should have restricted herself to donning kid gloves and kindly taking  Marble aside for a quite word to save her from being embarrassed?  Seriously? Why does Marble deserve such a level of deference  no matter what she says? Why should Fields be obliged to demonstrate such deference to her? 


        It may not be the Apocalypse but, for me, it's certainly the end of Fladen as a voice to be listened to with anything approaching polite respect. 

        • Davie says:

          Yep, and see how much deference the rightwing profiteers of hate and ignorance are giving Rep. Fields?  I just know Elliot is tsk-tsking them to "play nice" with Democrats (/snark)

          • ElliotFladen says:

            Actually as much as you guys are yelling at me here for questioning Field's handling of Marble, I'm getting much more crap on the right for my questioning Marble's remarks and the subsequent handling of Fields. 

            I think Fields handled Marble's remarks very poorly.  That is no excuse though to call her "rap sheet Rhonda" or especially bring up her dead kid.  That sort of stuff pisses me off too, even if its made by people I consider as friends and against people I consider as political opponents. 

            • mamajama55 says:

              Davie, that's exactly what Eliot is doing. Look at the Facebook comments on the original thread about this. And I appreciate it, although I still don't agree with him at all. 

              • ElliotFladen says:

                The FB thread you reference is very tame compared to some of the private threads I'm on. 

                • langelomisterioso says:

                  Sounds like you ought to spend a little time onthose private FB threads unfriending some people.

                  • ElliotFladen says:

                    I try to avoid blocking or unfriending people who offend me.  I only have done it twice.  One time I regret (a poster named citizen enabler…I unfriended her out of frustration b/c I was having a bad day).  The other time I do not (Jaxine Bubis, blocked a year ago, for generally being a jerk at several public events that our mutual friend had put together and being consistently rude/personal in online discussions)

                • Davie says:

                  Pyro Rob sounds pretty extreme to me, and thanks for responding to his posts.  It is unfortunate that I have to believe you when you say Pyro Rob is pretty tame compared to the private threads you are participating on.

                  It's just further indication of a deeper sickness that has always been with us (KKK, John Birch Society, etc) that has become emboldened by the Republican Party to delude themselves into believing their intolerant, distorted view of the world deserves equal respect vs the principles of fairness, justice and equality upon which our nation was founded.

                  • ElliotFladen says:

                    It isn't a John Birch/KKK thing (although I understand that is how many on the left will view it). What is instead is that the right wing likes to believe that it is anti political correctness (ignore the whole inconvenient problem of stuff like the 9/11 Mosque). And from that mindset, the view is that in a discussion about race, poverty, and diet, talking about chicken was legitimate and it was dishonest to tar Marbles and ..(here is the important part) cowardly for anybody not stick up for her 100%. 

                    So when a guy like Ryan Call or people of much less importance like myself say that Marble screwed up, from the POV of some on the right we are bowing before the gods of political correctness, exhibiting a lack of a spine, and generally being clueless baffoons who don't know how to win elections.  

                    Now there are a lot of issues with that view.  But being animated by racism isn't one of them.  Denial and delusion yes.  Racism, no. 

                    • ClubTwitty says:

                      poverty, diet, a legitimate discussion, except for that other representative responding.  How dare she.  Marble was just tossing out random foods, she could have as well mentiond chitlins, turnip greens, cornbread, or any other delicious and delectable 'southern' foods… It doesn't help your cause to try to over-explain it either, just saying.  Defensiveness looks, well, defensive.  And what was it Reince was going to drop $10M on again? 

                    • Davie says:

                      The KKK and John Birch Society, in which racism and religious intolerance form their core beliefs are only an example. It is the general mindset of hate, paranoia and violence they embody that I see in today's radical right.

                      Your reply speaks of the differences between you and your right-wing absolutist comrades over mere tactics — "if you aren't pure, how do you expect to get the impure to vote our way to win elections?"

                      That's a different discussion independent of racism, and not what most of us on this blog are addressing.  

                      Having grown up (a privileged WASP) in the segregated South, where I saw the bathrooms and water fountains marked "Colored", I don't need an education on what is or is not racism.

                    • ElliotFladen says:

                      The McCarthy followers saw a communist behind every bush.  You are more similar than you realize. Just switch "racism" for "communism".  

                    • BlueCat says:

                      Nobody needs an education on what racism is from Fladen who clearly has no clue or simply defines it as needed in order to be able to say that, whatever his wacko rightie friends or some "nice" rightie pols say, no matter what it is, it isn't racist.  Why not? Because it doesn't fit the Fladen definition, a definition that can be adjusted to make any conceivable remark not racist. 

                      If you're not actually wearing a hood and burning a cross while saying it, it isn't racist. And of course if someone Fladen considers "nice" is caught in such a costume engaging in such an activity, couldn't it be argued that said person was just making a fashion statement and getting set to toast some marshmallows? Racism shmacism.

                      If his rightie friends think him a coward they 're right but for the wrong reasons.  

                    • ClubTwitty says:

                      Maybe I'm wrong, but I take these folks to be primarily GOP voters.  They may be the GOP nightmare as well…but they are yours.



                    • BlueCat says:

                      It's not like seeing anything behind every bush. It's like not seeing an elephant in your backyard.

                    • Curmudgeon says:

                      The McCarthy followers saw a communist behind every bush.  You are more similar than you realize. Just switch "racism" for "communism".  

                      Of course. How silly of us. It's Marble and Co. who are the poor, persecuted wretches; and everyone else who are the big mean McCarthyist hoodlums….

                      See? The longer Elliott goes on, the more of the "reasonable Republican" (I don't think anyone's stupid enough to believe he's an Independent) facade wears away, and you see him for what he is. 

                    • langelomisterioso says:

                      Someday Eliot I would like some winger to define for us all precisely what is meant by "political correctness" and precisely how it differs from do unto others…

                      Then I'd ask what are those people you speak of in denial about and what are they deluded about? It wouldn't be the fact that they're racist would it?

              • nota33 says:

                Just found this out. Pueblo freedom and rights want to use their own poll watchers for the Giron recall.

                • mamajama55 says:

                  Per the S o S rules, poll watchers are "1 per issue, 1 per party" not 1 per candidate.  So there can be a Republican and a Democrat, or a pro recall and an anti-recall, which will probably be the same thing.

                  County Clerk Bo Ortiz pointed out that there just isn't room at these polling locations for troops of poll-watchers. In the Springs, they can also have an unaffiliated watcher to safeguard the Libertarian interest, IF Gordon Butt gets enough sigs to get on the ballot.

                  And poll watchers can't interfere with voting, nor see voter private info.

                  • nota33 says:

                    Hi mama, what are the chances you think Giron will beat her recall? Better than 50/50?


                    About Morse?

                    • mamajama55 says:

                      My own very informal and subjective polling shows Giron with a 60-30 edge. However, since Marks threw a wrench into the election and disenfranchised all of the people who need mail in ballots to vote, thad edge has shrunk to about 50-40. It's going to be all about turnout.

                      I can't really speak about Morse – I understand that it was a really close election originally. If you look at the Senate map for his district 11,it's one of the screwiest gerrymandered districts in Colorado. 2 is worse, though.


            • BlueCat says:

              Whatever you see in Field's words that causes you to say she handled this poorly is a mystery. Why you think that Fields making a public response in a public forum, instead of in a considerate whisper, to Marble's public statements made in a public forum is somehow unfair or the wrong way to do it is a mystery. 

              Why you are consumed with how embarrassing this must be for Marbles while not so much as considering for a moment the feelings of an African American member of the legislature on hearing Marble spout racist stereotypes about all that great fried chicken and BBQ?  That's probably the key to the mystery of your double standard.

              And you don't get any medals for not being quite as vicious as your horrible fellow travelers. So there are those out there with even more disgusting views than yours. That doesn't make yours any less disgusting.  The whole both sides are mad at me so I must be on to something meme has never been a meaningful measure of validity, especially when one of the sides is composed of hateful wackos. 

  5. ClubTwitty says:

    Despite 'insenstive' remarks made daily by GOP leaders somehere in the current time, a long long long time ago Abraham Lincoln was president and he was a Republican.  So ergo, Republicans today are not racist. 

  6. mamajama55 says:

    I have so many inlaws and extended family members who are so very parochial and naive. They come to the city and ask a black person if they know "___rap celebrity". They shake hands with a Jew and ask, "So you are of the Jewish faith. How's that working out for you?" They meet a gay person and ask how many people they know who have died of AIDS. They'd be cute and adorable, if they weren't so annoying.

    So does this make them racist, bigoted, and homophobic? Yes and no. Yes, the statements themselves are all of the above. No, the people themselves are not necessarily 100% racist, homophobic, and bigoted.  But for sure, if their outrageous statements are not confronted, they will continue merrily on in their little homogenized bubbles.

    Naturally, my conservative relatives think that I'm frigging crazy. They do sort of tolerate me, and we cautiously correspond in emails and by phone, and have developed a mode of respectful and civil dialogue.

    In these days where even the most remote rural outposts have at least dialup internet access, and most people have cable or satellite TV, there is really no excuse for anyone refusing to educate themselves on other cultures and ways of thinking.

    At the same time, we all have prejudices, and harbor stereotypes, whether we acknowledge them or not. It takes conscious work and humility  to root them out.

    Our legislators exist in a public and professional arena. The demands on them are greater, and they are held to a higher standard. Marble should have taken the trouble to examine her stereotyped attitudes, and, even if she still cherished them inwardly, at least not let them come out of her mouth in a discussion on public policy. (I think the issue up for discussion was public health, specifically diabetes).  I personally think Fields handled it appropriately.  She didn't "publicly humiliate" Marble. She just said, "I'm not going to sit here and listen to these stereotypes without speaking up." (my paraphrase)

    • DavidThi808 says:

      I disagree:

      even if she still cherished them inwardly, at least not let them come out of her mouth in a discussion on public policy.

      I appreciate people saying what they're really thinking. It lets the voters know what they're getting.

      • BlueCat says:

        Agree, David. I don't want to vote for someone who is secretly some else. I also must say I don't find that kind of person cute and adorable or merely annoying. I recognize that we love our loved ones regardless but that doesn't make racist views adorable.

      • Gilpin Guy says:

        It is the follow up non-apology that is so stupid David.  She claims to be this brave politician to start a conversation about diet and the poor but offered nothing of substance about the matter other than stereotypes.  One of the reason poor people are obese is that their diet is heavy in starches and they don't have access to adequate and affordable health care.  The poor can't afford King Sooper vegetables and meat so they eat a lot of cheap starches like pasta and potatoes.  If you want to have a discussion about diet then don't go the fried chicken and BBQ route which is a gross over generalization.  Talk about the real reasons people are unhealthy and what we can do to promote healthy nutrition for those who can't afford even the basics.

        • DavidThi808 says:

          My point is if a legislator is a racist and an idiot, then I prefer that they are up front about that rather than having handlers that hide who they truly are.

        • MichaelBowman says:

          Of course, Senator Marble enjoys a diet complete with all of the healthy foods she mentions thanks to the scores of migrant workers who work in deplorable conditions with littl or no access to health insurance.  After watching her interview on 7News last night, I'd suggest she get a spokesman and that she stops talking.  

          Is it just me – or is it the fact no one will talk about the 800-pound gorilla in the room when we won't take on the issue of a living wage?  After watching Senator Marbles interview I did a drive-by and watched Scott Brown on Fox going on in ad nauseum about food stamps and the typical Fox hysteria about the program.  Just how many ills would begin to temper if people were assured a livable wage?  I'm a really crappy Catholic when I'm compared to the agenda of the Denver Archdiocese – but I always jettison back to a great friend who is a Jesuit priest who cemented my core on social justice years ago.  His core question was always:  What's the core of this problem?  Until we start addressing living wages – none of this will ever be solved.

      • notaskinnycook says:

        I'm with you, David. I appreciate it when a hard-liner of whatever political bent lets their colors fly. Otherwise, voters get an official who seemed like a moderate, or even a technocrat,and find that they've elected a rabid partisan. It's hard not to feel duped in such cases, Scott Gessler springs to mind.  

  7. Albert J. Nock says:

    Normal people are not apathetic they simply don’t want anything to do with politics, either side.

    Government attracts criminal, weirdoes and the power hungry…


    • ajb says:

      That, and people who give a shit. Grow up, nock.

    • notaskinnycook says:

      "Normal people", which exempts anyone on this blog, are  ignorant, stupid and lazy. They don't know, they don't know how to find out, and they haven't the motivation if someone told them. That's why they spend their time watching "reality television" rather than involving themselves in actual reality. which includes politics. It's completely passive and asks nothing of them.  

      I consider politics a sport. Rather like some people enjoy football. The difference being, that the outcome of this game actually matters. Someday I may decide to "get in the game, when I decide which arenaI want to play in: City Council, State legislature, etc. Until then I'll cheer on my team and try to keep the other team honest.

  8. Diogenesdemar says:

    Apparently Chairman Call never got the memo . . .

    ( . . . about how "NICE" the Senator is . . .)

  9. davebarnes says:

    I am looking forward to the next Vicki Marble fundraising dinner.
    Fried chicken, tamales and Corona.

  10. Voyageur says:

    Some day, the race of man may see barbecue prepared by a white chef that is as good as the barbecue prepared by such master black chefs as the late Daddy Bruce.  But that day is not this day!

  11. BlueCat says:

    True, but on the other side of the coin, I smoked a nice piece of fish (Arctic char…yum) for a couple of friends I planned to see at a 4th of July BBQ party. I wanted to be sure they had options besides salad because one is a vegetarian who eats fish and the other doesn't eat red meet. They aren't white folks. 

    My own dry rub smoked ribs, pork and beef,  while not master black chef level, are widely admired by all sorts of friends and family and much appreciated since real great Q joints don't exist in my neck of the woods. Definitely the best Jewish mom ribs you're ever gonna have, if I say so myself.  Just did.

    • Diogenesdemar says:

      There's something about a Jewish mom bragging about her BBQ ribs that makes me very proud to be a (liberal) American . . .

      . . . and kinda hungry too!!!

      • notaskinnycook says:

        Especially the part about the PORK ribs! Now, I do a pretty good North Carolina pulled pork. Red pepper based dry rub, in the oven at 250 for 6 hours with a cider vinegar-based sauce, pull it apart with 2 dinner forks. Is anyone else thinking maybe a picnic someday? Now you know why I sign as I do. "Never trust a skinny cook."

        • BlueCat says:

          Like most of my Mom's generation, children of immigrant Jews who kept the dietary laws out of cultural habit more than piety, as soon as she left the house to marry she entered main stream American culture, including cheeseburgers and ham sandwiches, with enthusiasm. Hardly any of my boomer friends  lived in households that kept kosher although we received Jewish educations and went to non-orthodox synagogue on occasion. Cafeteria style Judaism and  a mainly secular orientation was definitely the most commmon kind outside of the very observant American Jewish minority. Even Bubby(grandma) who kept a kosher (by but not strictly, No one freaked  over seperate dishes for milk and meat) would eat shrimp cocktail at a restaurant .

  12. mamajama55 says:

    OMG you guys are making me hungry. Daddy Bruce! Great cook, Great humanitarian.

    So new Pols feature: 

    Menu Corner: 

    Marbles' Mexican Miracle Diet:

    (submitted by Dave Barnes:) Tamales, fried chicken, and Corona 

    Jewish Mom Ribs 

    (submitted by Blue Cat)

    Muslim Sympathy Tabbouleh

    (submitted by mamajama55)



  13. ProgressiveCowgirl says:

    So who's for an extremely delicious Pols meetup at WLJ's place?

  14. mamajama55 says:

    Sounds delish. Who the heck is wlj?

  15. mamajama55 says:

    Well, it's a 2 hour "up there" for me, although it's my old stomping ground.  I getup there about once every 2 weeks. Pick a day and I'll see if I can make it. 



  16. nota33 says:

    Vicki Marble closed her facebook page. You  should have seen all of the negative comments posted on her facebook page. Vicki, some words of advise, keep your opinions about race to yourself in the future.


    2014 is the year we kick a ton of Colorado republicans out of their seats!

    • MichaelBowman says:

      Her interview on Channel 7 last night didn't help her at all. I've never met Senator Marble personally, but the old adage, "When you find yourself at the bottom of the hole, stop digging" applied. Anybody who was exposed to her for the first time via that interview likely cringed. 

      • Curmudgeon says:

        Perhaps Elliott can explain to us how the interviewer wasn't nice enough to poor, stupid Ms. Marble, and was motivated by "something else" which he dare not mention…..

        • ElliotFladen says:

          Can you provide a link to the interview so I can watch it?

        • ElliotFladen says:

          Apples and oranges.  When Fields made her remarks this wasn't a story yet – it was just an interaction at a small meeting that I understand very few people had attended.  Fields had the opportunity, which she declined to exercise, to handle this in a private matter to "educate" (as Rep. Joe Salazar tried putting it) Vicki.  She could have either done this herself personally or through legislative leadership. She chose neither.  Instead, Fields chose to embarass Vicki by turning it into a national story through assuming Marble had spoken with animus, by taking a hostile tone, and by not giving Marble an opportunity to clarify what she meant by her words. 

          By the time this reporter in the link you provided had the story, it had already gone national, so handling it privately was no longer on the table.  That said, the reporter still handled this issue much more respectfully than Fields did in the initial hearing.  He asked Vicky to clarify her remarks, gave her an opportunity to speak, and had an even tone.  

          • GalapagoLarry says:

            Ok, Elliot, I'm going to take advantage of this rather private moment (It is, after all, nearly midnight. No one's around.) to give you some advice:






            Take a deep breath. And reflect. I mean, literally, go to a mirror, look yourself in the eyes, and ask, "Is it possible I'm racist? Just possible?"

            No, no, no. I didn't say to ask yourself, "Is it possible I'm A racist?" Two totally different things. But you really need to work some things out, Elliot. You really do.

            Is it possible, just possible, because of your particular life's references–upbringing, daily contacts, friendships, political influences, etc.–you've not been given the opportunity (repeat: opportunity) to confront in yourself something that (I'd posit) most of the folks here, and most people who come out cleansed when they reach  the other side of such reflection, have confronted? Just possible?

            I won't offer an answer for you, Elliot. Because I don't really give a shit. It's your life, your opportunity to engage your self, your evidence of integrity among your "peers". You want to stay at the keyboard and keep offering up empty knee-jerk appologies for some racist dimwit senator (Oh, gosh, Vicky's "nice".), go ahead.

            But there's been a lot of talk here at CoPols about the lack of good "conservative" or "Republican"  comment. (Not from me.) You risk joining the rest of the dearly departed self defeating ignoramouses if you don't get a handle on your real feelings about race. Get honest with yourself, then overcome it. To some of us, it's obvious. Both Dems and progressives take racism really, reallllllllly seriously. In your own self interest, you need to reflect, Elliot. Is it possible?

            • ElliotFladen says:

              Ok, GL, I'm going to take advantage of this rather private moment (It is, after all, early morning. No one's around.) to give you some advice:






              Take a deep breath. And reflect. I mean, literally, go to a mirror, look yourself in the eyes, and ask, "Is it possible I'm a partisan hack? Just possible?"

              No, no, no. I didn't say to ask yourself, "Is it possible I'm A partisan hack?" Two totally different things. But you really need to work some things out, GL. You really do.

              Is it possible, just possible, because of your particular life's references–upbringing, daily contacts, friendships, political influences, etc.–you've not been given the opportunity (repeat: opportunity) to confront in yourself something that (I'd posit) most of the folks here, and most people who come out cleansed when they reach  the other side of such reflection, have confronted? Just possible?

              I won't offer an answer for you, GL. Because I don't really give a shit. It's your life, your opportunity to engage your self, your evidence of integrity among your "peers". You want to stay at the keyboard and keep offering up empty knee-jerk appologies for some racist dimwit senator (Oh, gosh, Rhonda was just "educating" Vicki.), go ahead.



              Ok, now that humor is out of the way, here is your problem.  You seem to think that it is somehow racist to question how Rhonda handled a situation.  In thinking that out loud you have now heavily implied I am a racist without a single shred of evidence.  Sorry, but questioning Rhonda's handling of a situation is RACE NEUTRAL. It is not evidence in any way, shape, or form for being a racist.

              Along those lines, under logic I might as well imply that you are a pedophile on the same lack of evidence, that other commenters are compulsive gamblers, adulters, carriers of SDTs on baseless speculation, or that the owners of this site have secret shrines in their basement to worship Lucifer just because the whim of saying so came to me.  I might as well, but because I am not a hack, I'm not going to do that.

              But here is the difference between me and you GL.  I don't do that sort of thing.  So my suggestion to you, if you value having a commenter who is not in the echo chamber mindset that simply agrees with the rest of you all, is not to speculate on borderline slanderous things when you have absolutely zero evidence to back them up.  But then again, many other commenters here have made clear that they just want somebody who agrees with them at all times.  After all this is a partisan liberal site after all which seems to value sensationalism and embarassing anybody opposed to the DNC over any sort of actual dialogue.  So maybe I just have to be disappointed and put you in that category as well.  A shame. 

              • ClubTwitty says:

                Of course.  Veil of ignorance.  Your neutral position of pure objectivity.  I forgot who we were dealing with.  I thought it was another human. 

              • MADCO says:

                I can't speak for the CoPol community…except I can. I don't want only posters who agree with me.   I want posters who are willing to disagree and express with thought and clarity why and how.

                I prefer when w posters stay on point and engage.  

                But here's the thing – and there's no escaping it: In the case in at hand, Senator Marble while trying to make a point about economic development and poverty expressed some thoughts that relied on ethnic/racial stereotypes.  Does this maker her a racist? Not necessarily.  But not making her a racist and somehow converting her comments into non-racial comments are two different things. 

                If what she meant to say was something like  health conditions including diet and obesity may exacerbate the poverty and obstacles to the kind of economic development we all would  prefer she should have said that.  But to try and make the point with racial and ethnic stereotypes is to fail.

                You want to defend her because she is nice. And because you want to infer the broader point that we would all instinctively agree with – diet and obesity matter. (Doesn't explain all the rich old fat white people waddling around, but hey, perhaps Ms. Marble does not see old fat white people as a problem.) 

                But her niceness and your wanting to infer is not the point.  She said something else. Something that was based on racial and ethnic stereotypes.  RIghtly, she was called out for it by Representativ Fields. If Rep. Fields's response was less than elegant or careful – so what?


                PS  – you won't care, but just in case I want to  link back sometime in the future, let me just say this. Sure, we CoPolsters often bemoan the lack of decent conservative posters.   But not for the reasons conservatives seem to think- that secretly we all know you are Right and just need some convincing.

                We actually have engaging, if all too infrequent posters from most of the political spectrum in Colorado.  Yes, the site leans left.  So does the world around us.  

                But despite your facility with gammar and syntax, you are not it.  You evade and dodge with the best of us. Get asked a pointy question with no good rightie answer- change the subject (Benghazi!).  Attack the messenger (Rep Fields's handling was inapporpiate.) Deflect – but Ms. marble is so nice. And on and on.  It's ok – none of this makes you a bad politcal activist.

                I never saw any expression of support for Governor  Romney as presidential candidate that moved beyond  he's not Obama.  I asked for it often- just never got it.

                Likewise, Governor Maes, Senator Buck or Representative Gardner. (and just to prove old wounds heal slow, and I am as hacky as any other equal opportunity multi-partisan basher – neither did I ever hear any one support Romanoff over Bennet with anything more than Andrew is so nice and shouldda been SOS and it's just not fair).


                You can whine and bash G-Larry (and pout and troll and so on) all you want.  It proves my point. FWIW- if you read behind the words, G-Larry is trying to make a legitamate point, albeit stated inartfully.  Why do you leap to the offensive rather than infer a kinder intention?



              • GalapagoLarry says:

                You don't read real good, Elliot. I was making a distinction between being racist and being a racist, and there you go, losing (wilfully ignoring?) a useful distinction:

                you have now heavily implied I am a racist (emphasis GL)

                I did no such thing. But I do out and out say this: You are racist. Ignorantly so, perhaps, but demonstrably (here on this very thread) racist. Your defense of dear Vicky's dietary stereotypes by attempting to divert blame onto mean old Rhonda for calling Vicky out shows, however, that you are clueless about the many ways racism is exhibited. Now I know neither of these people (If I had to bet, I'd say they're both probably assholes.) but Vicky said obviously racist things, and against that, every single person on earth, including assholes (such as myself) has not only the right but a duty to call her out, in whatever forum is handy, whether a public tongue lashing or a whispered admonition in the unisex restroom. Not calling her out is destructive acquiescence. Supporting her by shouting "squirrel" in the hope others will look away is the same. It is not (emphasis GL) RACE NEUTRAL. (emphasis EF)

                Oh, by the way, yes, yes, yes, I am partisan, and, indeed, A partisan hack. I work (unpaid) within and for a political party, paste stickers on my mailbox, place posters in my front window and talk with my neighbors and friends obnoxiously often about the benefits of supporting my party and its goals. I'm not a chickenshit "unaffiliated".

                And, to repeat, Elliot: You don't read so good. In my comments I implied strongly I do not value your presence here, just that others do.

                (And that pedophilia/adulterer/compulsive whatever stuff is just too weird to address.)

                • ElliotFladen says:

                  I love how your standard of "implies" changes depending on who is doing the speaking.  Given that Vicki only was speaking about chicken and bbq, under your standard would have to conceded that that is not racist.  Which of course would also eviscerate your argument.  

          • DavidThi808 says:

            Why after Marble made a public statement do you expect Fields to make a private reply? If a comment is racist (and this clearly was), I think it's incumbent on an individual to call it out publicly. Otherwise those listening to it, and hearing no response, see it as being considered acceptable.

            Kudos to Rep Fields for responding in public.

            • BlueCat says:

              He's not listening to this aspect of our argument, David. He just repeats that it was inappropriate of Fields without any explanation, claps his hands firmly over his ears singing la la la as loudly as possible while repeating, like a magical incantation, that Fields did something wrong in making a public response to a public statement made in public by a state legislator in that public capacity. Go figure.

              Apparently if you're ignorant but also a nice GOP blond lady legislator, people should politely look the other way when you say stuff that shows your ignorance.  It doesn't seem to occur to Fladen that fragile flowers who don't want to be embarrassed by the embarrassing things they say probably shouldn't seek public careers as pols. 

              Or maybe it's reverse racism.  Maybe Fladen thinks smart, superior African American Fields should be extra tolerant because Marble is an intellectually and culturally disadvantaged blond lady, not to blame for her unavoidable small minded ignorance? Or Maybe he sees it as similar to making fun of the disabled? 

              Just guesses. There's no penetrating the mysterious mind of the Fladen. He probably thinks that, because neither liberals, centrists, the Republican establishment nor his wacko buddies agree with him on this, for differing reasons, that must mean he has it right. And he thinks he can run for something some day. 

          • Diogenesdemar says:

            Really??  It's Field's responsibility to educate every racist she encounters personally, in private, one at a time??

            Welcome to the 21st-century EF, where we can "educate" the entire shitpotull of racists in one media blast.  I mean, if it were possible to educate these serial-deniers about anything??  Maybe it's best that they just receive a public flogging, so that the others get put on notice that this kind of fucking nonsense is 75 years out of date from being tolerated in any fashion!

  17. mamajama55 says:

    Interesting discussion on "Up w Kornacki" this morning on modern racism, cultural insensitivity, perceptions of "post-racism", etc.  in context of working people's struggles.

    The link I posted is from yesterday, but check back Sunday pm for an updated one to today's (8/25) discussion. Ideas I got from it:  The wage struggle (the fast food worker minimum wage >= to $12/hr) is kind of post-racial. MLK would have been on the frontlines of it. MLK was a freaking radical socialist. Racism today is primarily economic.  Then there is cultural/racial insensitivity, which allows and encourages the economic, objectively observable race inequities to flourish. (This is where I think Marble's remarks fit in).

    Another connection I personally make, that wasn't in this discussion, is Elliott's idea that Field "should have taken Marble aside for a private discussion". Chrissy Periolo Upright, one of Field's (and my) detractors on Jason's orginal article Facebook posts, told a long story in a long facebook post of her own. The story, called "coming face to face with race", is all about how she was sort of an unconscious racist until a black coworker took her aside for a long talk and told her stories about his life. She had a moment of insight, thanked him, etc.

    My point? African Americans don't always need to be the ones reaching out to whites to educate them about their own racial insensitivity.  While I think it's great that Upright finally got the message, she could have educated herself about race previously in many ways: media, internet, cultivating friendships with diverse people she worked or hung out with. It was nice of that co worker to take the time to educate her, but it wasn't his obligation.

    Rhonda Fields, similarly, was under no obligation to "educate" Marble, when Marble voiced her racial stereotypes. The harm in those stereotypes, by the way, is that they perpetuate blaming the victim, and so hold back real public policy changes on, say, the SNAP program or school breakfast funding in Colorado.  So Fields chose to respond by saying that she had no intention of sitting quietly by while the stereotypes were voiced. Later, Field said:

    What was shocking is the generalizations, the stereotypes, the blatant stereotypes, making comments that black people have a problem, that Latino people have a problem," Fields said in response.

    "Over 70 percent of my people in my district are living in poverty, I just want to make sure that kids get a fresh start and a great start for a great education and that is what I think the conversation should be — not on chicken," Fields said.

    Since Periolo Upright holds Pols in contempt, and won't "waste her time on non-thinkers", I've gone ahead and posted this on her Facebook page.  And now anyone who's paying attention knows my real name, if you hadn't figured it out already.

    • ElliotFladen says:

      Don't assume that just because I made a good guess as to who you really are, others will do the same.  They won't, as I guessed in a very round about way.  In any event, as I promised you, I'll keep your identity quite. 

      As for "private chats" – that is how I've chosen to handle anti-semetic stuff in the past.  My logic has been pretty simple: I'm not seeking to embarass somebody if possible, I'm seeking to convince people that being anti-semetic is stupid.  If the goal is the elimination of anti-semetisim, what's the point in embarassing a person if it possible to accomplish the goal while avoiding the embarassment? The embarassed person is just going to become even more resentful towards jews and then likely pass on the same beliefs to their kids/grandkids who then might foster them when the political climate is more tolerant of such things.  

      I see no reason why the situation with race-based discrimination chats would be any different.  Moreover, I don't see a single compelling reason why thinking that they would be analogous would be racist in of itself as GL heavily implied above. 

        • ClubTwitty says:

          Meanwhile, sometimes bullshit needs to be called out as bullshit. 

        • BlueCat says:

          Nice people being quiet about anti-Semitic diatribes worked just swell in Germany back in the 1930s and 40s. 

          Yep, that's the ticket. Don't challenge anyone's public poison in public. Keep any response hush, hush to spare their sensitive feelings. You wouldn't want it widely known that you disagree. That would be so rude.  


          Besides just because somebody says something that sure as hell sounds completely anti-Semitic or racist or bigoted doesn't mean they really mean it or that they are really anti-Semites or racists or bigots. Doubtless they are just misunderstood nice people who should be more careful about their choice of words but should, under no circumstances, be embarrassed about anything they say.


          Great example, Fladen. I guess the holocaust never would have happened if only people hadn't pissed off all those basically nice Nazis by criticizing them in public. Who knew?


          • BlueCat says:

            I don't know what gives sometimes with font size and spacing.

          • ElliotFladen says:

            See my comment below from yesterday Bluecat which should address your Nazi Germany concern:


            Look – if somebody is INTENTIONALLY spouting stuff, or spouting stuff on a repeated basis so that intent can be strongly inferred, I'd agree with your analysis.  In fact, I've actually video recorded Tancredo saying stupid stuff and pushed it to hispanic media on that basis. 

            However, I continue to believe that embarassing UNINTENTIONAL or SPORADIC instances of offensive stuff when a private chat would do only fosters more hatred and thus undermines any long-term effort of a more tolerant society."


            • BlueCat says:

              But I was addressing just that point: That it is incorrect to label the blatantly evil or ill intentioned as the greatest danger. Without the silent, polite complicity of the majority  the truly outrageous is relegated to the fringe. 

              Hitler and his party would have wielded no more power than white supremacists here do if it weren't for the complicity of all those nice normal Germans, all the nice people who basically accepted and internalized, often without any particular intention involved, the anti-Semitic stereotypes. Certainly most of them wouldn't have personally harmed anyone but they and their attitudes made Hitler's rise from low class nobody in a country where family and class mattered very much, to the leadership of the nation possible. Perhaps it would have done those nice people them some good for others to embarrass them by speaking out in public to criticize their stereotype informed views.

              Your idea that somehow if it isn't a blatant, violent and intentional it isn't really racism and nobody should make a mountain out of a molehill where nice people are concerned is simply wrong. It's the opposite. Unconsciously internalized stereotypes that are taken for granted are  the more dangerous. 

              That's what allowed the holocaust and what allowed white people to kill black people in cold blood with impunity in our own country decade after decade.  It's what allowed massive denial of rights. A few really evil people could never have accomplished any of that without millions of complicit, polite nice people.   

              You still haven't offered a single reason that doesn't boil down to "because I say so' for why there is a thing wrong with one public figure responding honestly and in public to the statements made by another public figure in public. You have said nothing about why one legislator should be shielded from embarrassment over public remarks while the other should be criticized  for responding in the exact same public forum in which those remarks were made. You obviously can't, you haven't and you won't because there is no explanation that would make sense.   

              Regardless of your insistence that unintentional racial stereotyping without intent to harm is not racism, your contention that Fields has done anything inappropriate in this situation is patently ridiculous with no foundation in any possible objective standards. And it's deeply offensive.

              And it's long past time to drop this because it's futile. You are just plain 100% in the wrong and hearing more lame excuses from you doesn't interest me. Make your excuses to your wacko friends. Maybe they'll accept your basic worthless premises and get over being mad at you for not being racist enough for their tastes.


      • ElliotFladen says:

        and "anti-semitic"

        I really wish there was an edit button here. 

      • GalapagoLarry says:

        About "quiet": When someone spouts something racist/ant-Semitic/homophobic/mysogynistic (ignorant, destructive stuff of whatever nature) it's now out there. Especially if dropped by someone of reputation or authority, It gives cover. It provides excusability. It salves guilt. It can and does lend tacit agreement to violence.

        If the offence is public, quiet doesn't work. It works against all of us, the offender and the offended. Only by calling out bullshit will others see that bullshit doesn't pay.

  18. mamajama55 says:

    Different modes of communication and social change, both necessary. My mother was an Austrian immigrant, Jewish ethnically, Christian by family tradition,  but raised to always be a "Lady". She was not one to be chanting on a picket line, and she was uncomfortable with me doing that. Nor would she be insulting people in public.

    But what she took from living through Hitler's takeover of Austria, with all the hardships that involved for her family, fleeing to America and confronting anti-Semitism there,  was an agreement really with Rhonda Field's point of view: that the individual needs to speak up when they hear something racist or hateful or wrong. She always said that one person can make a difference.

    And if that's in private, fine, but she had no problem doing it in public, either – always  being polite and "ladylike", because that was who she was.  And she was also a community organizer, who understood completely that individuals have very little power in isolation, that it takes a community to make real change. Late in my own life,  I have come to appreciate her methods.

    • ElliotFladen says:

      Look – if somebody is INTENTIONALLY spouting stuff, or spouting stuff on a repeated basis so that intent can be strongly inferred, I'd agree with your analysis.  In fact, I've actually video recorded Tancredo saying stupid stuff and pushed it to hispanic media on that basis. 

      However, I continue to believe that embarassing UNINTENTIONAL or SPORADIC instances of offensive stuff when a private chat would do only fosters more hatred and thus undermines any long-term effort of a more tolerant society.

      • Curmudgeon says:

        You guys have to understand, arguing that Fields' response was somehow inappropriate is the only argument he can make.

        He can't say Marble was right, he can't say his hateful buddy was right; he can't even say that Ms. Fields' statements were wrong. Like a hack attorney in an ill-fitting polyester suit, defending a drunk on his 9th DUI, he feels obligated to make some kind of argument, no matter how pathetic or disingenuous.

        After all, as a spineless, egg-sucking GOP lapdog, that's his job.

        Notice how he never really addresses what Ms. Marble said about Mexicans? I bet that didn't get "pushed to the hispanic media"…..

        • ElliotFladen says:

          It is the only argument I have been making.  I haven't defended Marble's statements at all beyond saying that they seem likely inadvertently offensive.  Perhaps you are looking for a target dummy to defend them.  Sorry, but I'm not that guy. 

          • Curmudgeon says:

            You're also not the guy to bring up anything to the "hispanic media" about Marble's comments regarding Mexicans, right?

            • BlueCat says:

              And once again, Fladen has refused to show in any reasonable way  in which Field's response was inappropriate at all, much less more inappropriate than the Marble comments to which she was responding.  He just repeats that it was. 

              He has completely failed to explain why making public remarks in a public forum (Marble) should be exempt form a public response in the same public forum (Fields)  or why Marble should be shielded from embarassment caused by making those remarks in public while Fields should be required to  avoid saying anything  in response in public. 

              Why is Marble supposed to be shielded from the consequences of her ignorance? Why is Fields supposed to be obliged to shut up and let the the ignorant comments stand?  

              Finally, these remarks weren't made by a private citizen and picked up on a cell phone at a private party. Marble made them in her very public capacity as a legislator. Fladen can keep repeating his nonsense about the inappropriateness of Fields' response all he wants. It's still utter nonsense completely without merit by any objective standards of behavior appropriate among legislators speaking publicly.

              And apparently nobody agrees with him. Republican leaders have not joined him in making the ridiculous case that Fields unfairly embarrassed Marble and the wackos don't think he's being vicious enough to Fields

              Good luck to that boy winning any elections.

        • MADCO says:

           When the law is on youe side, pound on the law; when the facts are  on your side, pound on the facts; if neither is on your side, pound on the table.


          It's not the only argument he could make- if the GOTP/U hope to move the discussion in Colorado (and other left leaning electorates) they need to actually say something positive.  He's not Obama was not going to be a winning campaign message for Governor Romney (nor Canadian Ted Cruz nor Texan Rick Perry, nor Senator "Frothy" Santorum.) 

          Obamacare is bad is nowhere near the level of effectiveness of a soundly worked out alternative proposal which , btw, cannot be based on for profit fee for service (Grayons's don't get sick or die fast when you do).

          Senator Marble, and all of her defenders, would be better served to move the discussion back to what was supposedly her point in the first place: health issues, some genetic, some cultural, including diet and obesity, are factors to be considered when discussing economic develpment and personal poverty. That they do not only suggests that they cannot. Which even then would only be suggestive that it was never the real point in the first place.

          Political observers differ on whether that presidential candidate's speech at the Neshoba county fair was a whistle or not.  The arguments both ways can sound plausible, if not convincing.   Though when that same candidate later created a mythical welfare queen, the whistle was far more obvous.

          I'm not certain what was Ms.  Marble's intention or point. But I am certain Rep Fields's reaction was just fine.


    • GalapagoLarry says:

      May I please repeat this, mama?

      …individuals have very little power in isolation,…it takes a community to make real change.

      Sorry. Just did. Thanks.

      individuals have very little power in isolation, that it takes a community to make real change. – See more at:

      individuals have very little power in isolation, that it takes a community to make real change. – See more at:

      • GalapagoLarry says:

        Don't even ask what happened. None of that copied/pasted stuff appeared in the paste box, so I just typed what I wanted to copy, figuring — oh, who the hell cares.

        • BlueCat says:

          The site still works in mysterious ways. But unfortunately it's improved enough that I'm back to spending too much time commenting. 

          And remember how recently people were complaining that there aren't nearly as many comments as in the past and all the righties have fled? Well we've got some more wacko righties popping up and apparently all you have to do to get a 100+ string of responses is get Elliot going about how there is no racism on the right, just well meaning misunderstood righties, mean lefties and rude insensitive African Americans.  Too many of us apparently can't resist responding repeatedly even though we know it's futile.

          We really should know better. 

  19. dwyer says:

    What Vicki said was: Blacks are poor because they are sick and they are sick because the eat fried chicken and BBQ because they are black.

    • BlueCat says:

      Good summary. And Fields should be way more understanding of poor ignorant blond lady legislator's ignorance, while poor ignorant blond lady legislator shouldn't be subjected to embarrassment over her ignorance. It's apparently not her fault that she's so ignorant. Guess it just goes with being blond or something. So Fields is just being insensitive to poor blond lady legislator's handicapand that's just mean and uncalled for. 

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

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