U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

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

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
January 04, 2014 12:58 AM UTC

Weekend Open Thread

  • 88 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

"A pessimist is a man who tells the truth prematurely."

–Cyrano de Bergerac 

Tweet
Share

Comments

88 thoughts on “Weekend Open Thread”

  3. First it was Duck Dynansty, now it is, god save us, the Little Sisters of the Poor, who are fighting the battle for the survival of christianity as they know it against the evil doers in the country which include, evidently some cable networks and the US Justice Department. 

    The Little Sisters of the Poor in their Mullen Home only accept, into assisted living and nursing home wings, those applicants already receiving Mediciaid.

    Of course, as mediciaid receipients, these applicants are also eligible for contraceptive coverage, which the dear nuns would have to administer, except as the applicants also have to be over 65, so perhaps it is not an issue.

     

    3. Is there a new case with the Little Sisters of the Poor?

      Justice Sotomayor recently issued a temporary stay while the SCOTUS considered their application for an appeal of their objection to using the Religious Exemption Application. They claim that by signing the form (which merely asks them to state that they are a religious non-profit that morally objects to providing contraceptive coverage), that they are in effect approving that coverage.

      The interesting thing about the case is, if HuffPo's writers have the right of it, their insurance company – the Christian Brothers Trust – is itself a religious organization and can decline to provide coverage without penalty iff the Little Sisters would sign on the dotted line. So – don't sign and protest to the courts, or sign and allow your religious insurer to decline to provide coverage with no penalty. If true, the Supreme Court should toss their case with prejudice.

    5. Silly Dwyer!  It's not about the residents, it's about the employees. The nuns claim that signing the paperwork to certify that they won't pay for contraceptive care so that their insurance company can provide it, as per the ACA, violates the church's prohibition of contraceptives. They claim it's aiding and abetting SIN! I think all of these cases are on thin ice. Telling their employees what medical care they may have sounds awfully close to practicing medicine to me.

      1. @notaskinnggcook

        Obviously being moderated, has made me even more obtuse than usual.  I was being facetious.  Mediciaid does impose certain standards on nursing homes and assisted living centers.  One of those standards reguires management  to "administer" medications.  In other words, management monitors the taking of prescription medication.  Of couse, birth control is not an issue with the over 65 aged residents or the issue with health care coverage for these elderly.

        However, there could be a very real issue when religious orders run group homes, shelters for young women, etc.  If the policy would be to keep all prescription drugs under key and have the "management" distribute the medicines, what happens if doctors prescribe birth control pills to residents of such facilities and those facilities accept state or federal funding?  Or, the residents are receipients of mediciaid?  That could be an issue; but you are right it is not germaine, here.  

        1. The point  I was also trying to make is that the Little Sisters of the Poor do good work.  But their work is not solely supported by the order, charity donations or the catholic church.  Their residents of assisted living and the nursing home units  must be mediciaid receipents before they are accepted. Mediciaid is, of course, a federal and state tax payer supported program.

          1. They do good work. The "Sisters' were well respected in Highland, where I raised my kids.  My understanding of the ACA workaround for religious exemption is that it applies to the employees, the staff of the "Little Sisters" in this case.

            So prospective hires should be told that if they want birth control, they have to apply directly to their insurance carrier.  From their website, it looks as though they do hire  some secular staff out of their Order.

            Their case against ACA is pretty absurd – they're saying that just signing a paper giving them religious exemption status is somehow repressive, but the right wing is all over it.

            1. As difficult as it is for me to admit, I apologize.  What i originally wrote about the LIttle Sisters was confusing. I started talking about mediciaid and recepients, and never mentioned ACA and employees.  I did know that was about employee insurance coverage, I just didn't mention it. 

              Could "moderation" possibly involve gamma rays  that I could blame for my confusion?  

    1. Did you try to post a graphic or pdf file? That's usually what it is for me when the message, "This comment is awaiting moderation," comes up. Eventually either Pols fixes it or I forget about the post.

      Pdfs or very large graphic files seem to crash the system. If it's not a graphic, it's probably some other system glitch. In other words, don't take it personally.angel

    2. First of all, there are no comments in the moderation queue.

      Second, moderation screening is entirely automatic, generally caused by a large number of links. We regularly check for and approve such comments if they're not spam.

      Above all, you can be assured that no one here is censoring you for any nontechnical reason.

          1. I, too, am curious how a banned poster continues to post. Outing is outing…I understood there was a zero tolerance policy for such behavior. What's up?

            1. We're not sure what happened here, as we've banned users successfully in the past and they weren't able to easily return. We've installed another layer of security that should help. Sorry for the headache, we were out of pocket yesterday and just now saw this.

                1. Don't think we need one. There is no constitutional right to be allowed on every blog. Just like there's no constitutional right to, say, insult customers at the store where you work and still keep your job. Outing and the no outing rule are pretty straight forward. 

              2. I think you're dealing with someone who knows a trick or two and I think the various problems we've had around the same times X has popped back up are not a coincidence.

                  1. I don't know what happened here. I remember responding but not with the single word "problem".  So if you're puzzled by this response…. me, too!

      2. Thank you very much for the reassurance.  I posted three comments at 7:53 this morning.  There were no links, no pdfs, or graphics.  There were all "under moderation." They are now posted, but I don't know when.   I wonder if I was posting almost at the same time as David.  His posting including words in Klingon. I would be absolutely flattered to death and honored, too, if the "moderator" thought I was capable of using Klingon.

         

        No matter.  Thank you all for the help and CP for posting.  I will try not to be cautious or scared.  Although both feelings come naturally to me.

  5. CPOLS doesn't run a very transparent discussion site, that's for sure. Overall, they do a good job, but there are some glaring ommissions comapared to other liberal/left/Democratic sites.

     

    1. Not everyone on the left yearns for the sack of crazy that was SqaureState, Zap.

      If ColoradoPols today is what happens when the left is filtered, then that'll do pig, that'll do.

  6. OK weird stuff happening again.  Can't navigate without getting an error message about establishing a data base. Here goes. We'll see if this posts.

  8. Duck Dynasty – The ducks win and they don’t even play football, oh wait….

    The goal of the republicans is to win the US Senate, nationally and in Colorado to take control of the State Senate and possibly the US Senate seat held by Udall.

    The strategy is to fire up the base, keep them energized and control the framing of the political debate. Generally, the debate is framed as federal government v. state’s rights; rural v. urban;  christian v. everyone else, gay v. straight, etc.  There are infinite variations on the main themes and so many “dog whistles” that dems should wear earplugs. …maybe even sell them. There is apparently no Democratic plan to counter these campaigns.

     The Duck Dynasty fiasco was a gift…fell into their laps…from santa’s sled right down the republican chimneys. Dems were, of course, asleep at the watch or even perhaps actually celebrating, quietly, religious holy days.  The right  made brilliant use of talk radio, blogs, social media…I think Fox news had to scramble to even get a work in….

    Target group under attack:  Gays, blacks,….and their allies,.progressives, NACCP, Democrats, etc…

     Slogan:  StandwithPhil; Support Duck Dynasty  

     Event:  Phil Robertson, patriarch of the Duck Dynastywho make a fortune with a duck call and whose family stars in an A&E reality show, gave an interview to GQ,  Evidently, he made comments to the effect that according to his take on the bible, homosexuals were in the same category as terrorists. And that the blacks he worked with, back in the day, were happy and not complaining.  (Disclaimer:  I, just like Sarah Palin, have not actually read the article, just commentary about it.)

     

     A&E suspended Robertson Crackle Barrel took all the Duck Dynasty brands off the shelf.

    The loyal audience retaliated. Walmart sold out of Duck brand items. 250,000 plus signed a online petition supporting Robertson and 3 million “likes” on Facebook. Those are big numbers.  Those are people who will probably vote republican.

    A&E and Crackle Barrel reversed their positions.  A&E had obviously not read its audience correctly. A&E should listen to talk radio.  Total victory for the “other side.”

    The real tragedy for me of this whole sorry episode is that not one prominent voice or even a minister from mainstream Christian congregations said that Roberson’ view was not everyone’s interpretation of the bible.  No one spoke out, except belatedly the Rev. Jackson, and perhaps Rev. Sharp, about the courage of the black civil rights workers.  The silence was deafening and maybe it is time to pull out the earplugs.

      1. Excellent question and I don't have any answer.  But, the Republicans failed to get out their vote in 2012 and if they can get their base energized and out to vote in 2014, their chances of winning are increased.

        Republicans "own" the war on religion, the way that Democrats "own" the war on women.  Duck Dynasty was framed as part of the "war on religion"….the progressives attacking Robertson's First Amendment Rights.  This had absolutely nothing to do with the government….but the term "progressives" is a stand in for democrats, obama, etc.   That is why "framing" the argument is so critically important.

        The support for Duck Dynasty drew on its large audience.  I had never heard of Duck Dynasty until introduced to it last summer by a member of our extended family….who is young, professional, a absolute fan of Duck Dynasty and a registered Independent.  Evidently, DD is very popular with this demographic, according to my family member- like it's their Dalton Abby.  Will this group vote Republican?  I think that there is a good chance they will….they do NOT identify as "progressives," more as Libertarian, if pressed, but not that interested in politics, per se.

         

         

         

         

         

        1. You listen to too much right-wing radio.  You've totally bought into the bogus First-Amendment issue.  We all have a right to say what we think without prior restraint.  But we have no such right to evade the consequences of what we said if it impacts our employers, and no such right to a lucrative TV contract.  The First Amendment ends at the door to the workplace.  Business is business.  A&E backed off because their actions were hurting their business, not because of the First Amendment.

          1. @Ralphie,

            PLEASE.  I agree with you totally.  What I am posting here is the proganda that the right wing is using as part of their strategy to win the US Senate and the Colorado Senate.  We are in total agreement on this issue.  But we are two votes; and our agreement does not counter the effectiveness of what the right wing/republicans are doing. 

            What is awful is from "our side" was, IMHO, the total lack of response from mainstream Christian ministers.  The governor of Louisana supported Robertson, whose comments, IMHO, were absolutely vile.  

            My point in posting all of these "war on religion" battles is I think it is imperative that the charges be "answered."  To that end, on the boyles show, where he had a substitute over the holidays, an ACLU lawyer called in and careful explained the Colorado public accommodation law and how it related to the bakery case.  ya, I do what I can….on other blogs….where the right wing sometimes posts and there can be a more general audience.  

            1. I don't agree with always answering charges.  You can't fix stupid.  And when you start answering charges, you let the other side control the agenda and frame the argument.  As a friend lf mine used to say, "When you're explaining, you're losing."

              There's simply no point in responding to every charge ever made.

              1. And besides…  Boyle listeners aren't going to change their minds because of an ACLU (horrors) lawyer. Daft correctly asks how many will vote Republican because of something like this who would not vote Republican otherwise. The answer is no significant number. Period. Which I'm pretty sure is what Daft was getting at.

                You put your effort and your resources first into getting your own out and next into swaying the persuadable. You don't waste a lot of money or energy on groups you know you aren't going to get anyway. Those who agree with Daddy Duck or Boyles aren't persuadable. Why give them many times more free publicity than they deserve by constantly amplifying their message? 

                Personally, I think it's natural to expect a fundamentalist to have the views espoused by Daddy Duck on gay marriage and an ignorant old coot to have his views on happy pre-civil rights black folks. I wouldn't have been among those calling for a network to drop someone from a show I don't watch because of his personal beliefs, beliefs I understand he wasn't expressing on the show but in an interview. 

                A&E looks at it, as you say, strictly as a business decision, just like retailers who ask their employees to wish customers a generic Happy Holiday. 

                In today's fragmented media world, a large enough audience on TV or radio to be a big ratings success doesn't necessarily mean a large proportion of the population. That's why ratings giants like Rush Limbaugh (though he's being dropped from more and more markets) or Hannity and Fox as the number one in ratings of the cable "news" networks can coexist with the reality of an Obama in the WH, a Dem majority in the Senate, the recent Dem sweep of statewide offices in VA , a steady movement toward marriage equality, pot legalization in a far from liberal state like Colorado and lots of other things that would definitely not be happening if ratings power based on a healthy size but in no way majority niche audience translated directly into overwhelming political power. 

                We have to worry about persuadables and getting out our own.  We don't have to get hysterical over every inanity uttered by every Duck Daddy. That's not being a what me worrier. It's just common reality based sense.

              2. Let's agree to disagree.  I am not talking about "every charge."  I am talking about the media campaigns that exploit events in such a way to help Republicans and distort our laws or our values.

                Let me summarize:

                Little Sisters of the Poor:  This is a legal matter and I don't think it wise to respond, unless the SCOTUS decision demands it, or if the media campaign distorts the SCOTUS decision.

                Bakery Case:  The media frenzy on the radio never mentioned the Colorado Public Accommodation Law. It was if the "politically correct thought police showed up and arrested this honest christian baker, just trying to do business according to his beliefs." I think it was proper for a lawyer to respond and outline the legal aspects of the case.  I wish more  had done it.

                Duck Dynasty:  I think that mainline churches had an absolute moral responsibility to say that  Robertson's particular interpretation of the bible was not shared by all christians.  They should be ashamed that they did not.

                There has been effective responses to outrageous statements: ie: Rush Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke awful names (I cannot remember the actual term…slut?)

                Ken Buck's disgraceful performance on Meet the Press and his justification for not filing charges in an alledged rape case as the alledged victim was suffering from "buyers' remorse."  What about Todd Adkins and his statement that women had a way of "shutting down" during a "real rape" so they wouldn't get pregnant.

                Would you argue that Democrats should not have responded to any of the above??? 

                 

                 

                 

                 

    1. I think that this is probably BS, or exaggerated, David, at least in states like Colorado which have working exchanges. If I want to add someone to my plan, I do have to renegotiate the price and terms, of course, and there are hoops to jump through. But it's possible, with intervention of a human The navigators are really helpful and easy to communicate with.

      Open enrollment ends March 31, but people who have life events (death, birth, adoption, etc) can still change after that.

    2. Yep, just the federal site. From the AP (via HuffPo):

      For now, the HealthCare.gov website can't handle new baby updates, along with a list of other life changes including marriage and divorce, a death in the family, a new job or a change in income, even moving to a different community.

      Such changes affect not only coverage but also the financial assistance available under the law, so the government has to be brought into the loop. But the system's wiring for that vital federal function isn't yet fully connected.

      ps – Ralphie, just because you don't like a fact doesn't make it bullshit.

      2. I stand corrected,

         

        and I dislike doing that… But something that never comes up in the right wing media coverage is that the states that set up exchanges don't have the same problems as those that scorn, yet rely on the Federal site for healthcare.

    1. I think that may be like my impulse to go out and buy marijuana cookies – just because I can....so yeah, everyone should take the coverage for a spin.

    2. So should everybody take advantage of birth control coverage until they get that fixed?

      Doesn't that sentence work better if you take out the word "that"?  wink

  11.  

     

     

    This isn't politics but, it is newsworthy….

     

    Weather Conditions — Just got off the phone with a friend who lives in North Dakota.

    She said that since early this morning the snow has been nearly waist high and is still falling. The temperature is 32 below zero and the north wind is increasing to near gale force. Wind chill is -59. Her husband has done nothing but look through the kitchen window and just stare.

    She says that if it gets much worse, she may have to let the drunken bastard in.

     

    1. I'm excited about it. Can't wait to see how much more progress is made. 

      Or don't you realize that it's the entire state we're talking about, and not just little pockets of gun-worshipping, Koch-sucking, ass-backwards crybaby secessionists? 

      I'd love to see your response when it happens, but as we've seen, you don't ever have the balls.

  16. Oil and gas drilling pollutes well water, states confirm

     

    By Kevin Begos, The Associated Press

    PITTSBURGH — In at least four states that have nurtured the nation's energy boom, hundreds of complaints have been made about well-water contamination from oil or gas drilling, and pollution was confirmed in a number of them, according to a review that casts doubt on industry suggestions that such problems rarely happen.

    The Associated Press requested data on drilling-related complaints in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and Texas and found major differences in how the states report such problems. Texas provided the most detail, while the other states provided only general outlines. And while the confirmed problems represent only a tiny portion of the thousands of oil and gas wells drilled each year in the U.S., the lack of detail in some state reports could help fuel public confusion and mistrust.

     
    The AP found that Pennsylvania received 398 complaints in 2013 alleging that oil or natural gas drilling polluted or otherwise affected private water wells, compared with 499 in 2012. The Pennsylvania complaints can include allegations of short-term diminished water flow, as well as pollution from stray gas or other substances. More than 100 cases of pollution were confirmed over the past five years.

    Read more here….

    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/05/22190011-oil-and-gas-drilling-pollutes-well-water-states-confirm?lite=

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

29 readers online now

Newsletter

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