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
February 28, 2014 10:35 PM UTC

Weekend Open Thread

  • 187 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

"No question is so difficult to answer as that to which the answer is obvious."

–George Bernard Shaw

Tweet
Share

Comments

187 thoughts on “Weekend Open Thread”

  1.  

    Planned Parenthood reveals big 2014 game plan

    The political arm of Planned Parenthood is preparing to launch its largest campaign offensive ever, targeting more than a dozen states and some of the cycle’s top Senate and gubernatorial races to raise the alarm about the stakes of the 2014 midterm elections for women’s health care and abortion rights…

     

    Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said the group intends to show that candidates don’t need to campaign defensively on “women’s reproductive health issues,” citing the importance of that message to Democratic victories in the 2012 elections and last year’s Virginia race.

    “The bottom line is: Many of these races are going to be determined by women and women voters. To the extent that we still have politicians who are running on a platform to repeal women’s access to health care and women’s rights, that’s a losing proposition,” Richards said. “We will absolutely be on the offense on these issues.”

     

    1. DP, They have figured out that if the Republicans take the Senate they will not be getting taxpayer funds for abortions, which is their bread and butter business.  

      In 2012 they performed over 300,000 abortions.  Religious conservatives don't see that as birth control.  They believe life begins at conception.  Barbara Boxer apparently believes life begins when the child is taken home from the hospital.  I personally believe it happens somewhere in between.

      What does Cecile Richards think?

      When asked when life begins, Cecile Richards, the President of Planned Parenthood Action Fund said, “It’s not something that I feel like is really part of this conversation…every woman needs to make their own decision.”

      “Why would it be so controversial for you to say when you think life starts?” asked Jorge Ramos.

      “I don’t know that it’s controversial. I don’t know that it’s really relevant to the conversation,” answered Richards.

      http://twitchy.com/2014/02/27/cecile-richards-on-when-life-begins-i-dont-know-that-its-really-relevant/

      Maybe Richards thinks life starts when you send your kid to pre-school?

      1. The Republicans will NOT gain anything this year. If anything at all, they will be shrunk by over 75%. They'll lose more Senate seats, lose the House, and relegate themselves to a permanent minority WITH continued infighting among the Republicans and its Tea Party and its Liberterian ilks.

        It's not hip to be a Republican these days…

         

        1. DP, to be kind, your opinion is not shared by most observers.

          Most think the Republicans will pick up between 6 and 12 in the Senate and not lose any seats in the House.

          The six year election is generally not kind to an incumbents party and let's just say most are seeing the ACA as not being helpful to the Dems in this cycle.

          2. Let's see. You have some serious problems within the Senate candidates on the Republican side. Half of them are wholly unqualified to serve as a dunce much less than a Senator.

            What's more – many of them have very poor voting records which will NOT bode well for their chances. The more informed the voters become about their choices, then the obvious choice will be made to remove as many Republicans as possible. Did you know that your Minority Leader is already in trouble from BOTH ways – left and right.

            I don't see any survivors from the Republicans wet dreams of owning the WH, House or the Senate in '14. This time, you fail to notice that there is a *very special* provision in PPACA or "Udallcare" that you love to call it that will enable more people to be registered to vote and so far we've signed up 4 million new Democrats. That's for me to know, and you to find out what provision that is.

             

          1. Experts are nothing but opinions.

            The true grassroots have the pulse of the people, and it's not for the Republicans.

            Can I show you Rove being wrong about Romney and everything else. Do you want to continue to be a poster boy for an idiot Republican, Andrew?

             

        4. Love the spirit, dustpuppy, but you're nuts. Laughable predictions about 75% GOTP shrinkage just give the trolls something to make well deserved fun of you over.

      2. I personally believe it happens somewhere in between.

        What does Cecile Richards think?

        When asked when life begins, Cecile Richards, the President of Planned Parenthood Action Fund said, “It’s not something that I feel like is really part of this conversation…every woman needs to make their own decision.”

        Why is she held to a standard you can't meet yourself?

        What is wrong with agreeing with a conservative Supreme Court decision?

        "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's concept of existence, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."

        Why do you hate liberty?

      1. Every time the personhood amendment comes to a vote (which seems like every election) it gets shot down.

        What makes these morons think that the personhood amendment will pass this year? It'll fail, and fail big by 70-30.

         

        1. That isn't the point, dustpuppy. It doesn't need to pass as long as it massages the moral outrage of the Christian right and raises lots of money, which is the real motivation for so many rightie initiatives.

          1. +100, Duke; as a matter of fact, I think they like losing…they know the majority of reasonable people are against them, but it helps maintain their persecuted religious whackjobs stance, and gives them an excuse to spew more hate.  

        2. Duke's right. Personhhod amendments are a GOTV strategy for the Christo-facists. They stir up "moral outrage". fill the coffers of Republicans who promise to fight to overturn Roe and turn out the extreme right-wing electorate.

        2. What seems off wannabe rich guy is that dog turd that occupies the space where your brain should be.  The comment referenced "BOTCHED" abortions pre Roe v Wade.  Now days gun violence which you don't have as big a problem with as taking away a woman's right to her health care choices because you support unlimited access to lethal weapons by the criminally insane is probably one of the more frequent reasons people go to emergency rooms.  Times have changed.

      3. You'd be hard-pressed to find an argument to persuade a hardcore Rightie that sending women back to Pre-Roe conditions isn't a good thing.

        Them womenfolk, minorities, and gays gettin' all uppity is why they're so rabid about "taking America back". After all, who do you think they're taking it back from?

      4. And to be clear PP can't stop getting government funds for abortion because it doesn't get eny in the first place. To state otherwise is to lie, not that righties have any problem with that.

    3. History of Planned Parenthood, from its Ohio roots in the Margaret Sanger days:

      and a quote:

      In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, ruled that the constitutional right of privacy extends to a woman's choice of whether to bear a child. Before this decision, complications of illegal abortions represented the number one cause for emergency room admissions among American women. The Maternal Health Association had expressed concerns about abortion as early as 1937. That year, Dr. Ruth Robishaw, the Maternal Health Association's first staff physician, lectured on the "scourge" of abortion. The "chief responsibility for its correction," she said, "lies at the door of the medical profession." She claimed that physicians had the duty to provide patients with contraceptive care and education. A researcher as well as a physician, she estimated that in Cleveland in the 1930s, illegal abortions caused almost one-fifth of maternity-related deaths.

      And from "Reflections of a Provider – Before and Since Roe ..."

      "[As residents, physicians] were never trained specifically to treat a botched abortion. But we were trained to treat incomplete spontaneous abortions….Women who came in with an incomplete abortion had to have their uterus emptied…[by] D&C. If we had a person with a fever who we knew [had had] a botched abortion, we were trained in how to treat that patient: intensive antibiotics, blood when necessary,…emptying the uterus and so forth. We saw plenty of incomplete, botched abortions, and we had to know how to treat those women.

      "The curious thing was [that we could tell when women had had] induced illegal abortions. But oftentimes, the women would not tell you what happened. They would claim it was a spontaneous abortion. Very, very rarely would they say that they had gone to an abortionist. But we knew….And, yes, we treated many of them….And in the three years…[of my residency at Minneapolis General Hospital], we never lost a patient from a septic abortion."

      1. MJ, I did a review of literature and I do not see support for the statement made in the history of planned parenthood.  I did find some interesting things along the way.  The push to make abortion illegal was the result of a turf battle involving doctors trying to get market share.  I did not know that.

        2. I did come across some numbers that suggests the planned parenthood info is way off.

          "The actual maternal death rates for abortions in three countries in the late 1940s were:

          • Sweden (legal),    250 per 100,000,    1946-1948;
          • Denmark (legal),  195 per 100,000,    1940-1950;
          • U.S. (illegal),        165 per 100,000,    1940-1950."

          Christopher Tietze, M.D., and Stanley K. Henshaw, M.D. Induced Abortion: A World Review. New York: The Population Council, 1986 (6th Edition). Page 107.

          2. Infrapontal Waaaah Baby is now advocating illegal abortions.  Crawl back under your bridge, Troll Boy.

            ***Sorry, BC, I've been trying not to feed the troll, but his amazing misuse of statistics was too much this time.***

    1. David, In light of the Russian takeover in the Ukraine, and in solidarity with those who seek freedom over oppression, do you have any Ukrainian videos?

  3. Sarah Palin as Nostradamus?

    Remember Palin suggesting that Obama's lack of decision-making was a sign of weakness and would be exploited by the Russians who would see that as a green light to take over the Ukraine?

    Here is the quote:

    "After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama's reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia's Putin to invade Ukraine next."

    http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2008/10/22/russia_might_invade_ukraine_if_obama_wins_palin_warns

    Sure looks like she was right.

     

     

      1. BuckBoy is right! Sarah Palin is a gosh-darned genius! 

        She should run for President.

        Oh please, oh please, oh please, let her run for President……

        1. Showdown!  Sarah Palin vs. Hillary Clinton in 2016.   Dems win control of both chambers of 49 state legislatuires, plus Nebraska Unicameral, and control House 350-87, Senate 68-32.  Tea Party claims moral victory and vows to run Palin again in 2020

      2. How about having them pay a price? 

        Sanctions a la Iran with the EU?  

        There are steps besides troops that would exact a cost.  

        Doing nothing means they have a free pass for taking over their next neighbor.

        I have thought that we should move our European HQ from Germany to Poland so that we actually have a presence where it is meaninful.  It might also encourage the europeans to actually start paying for their own defense.

                  1. I loves me some google. However, there is not a single source in the search you linked  that shows a "solution." Lots of ideas, lots of proposals, but the onsite storage they currently use is temporary, whcih they acknowledge.

                    Looking at all current possible choices – nuclear seems pretty pricey. And that's with no known solution.

                     

        3. "European HQ"

          What are you talking about?

          NATO HQ is not in Germany.  The most important US diplomatic mission (s) – not Germany.

           

          Based on your logic we may as well move sometihng to Budapest or Istanbul.

            1. Total number, that's true, so far.

              but I'd argue the greater force is not in Germany but UK or afloat in and around the Med. And either way, that's not how "HQ" is usually defined.

              Deploying US military forces to Poland would be incredibly belligerent. And pointless.  But if it would get the last 35k out of Afghanistan, ok.

        4. Showdown!  Sarah Palin vs. Hillary Clinton in 2016.   Dems win control of both chambers of 49 state legislatuires, plus Nebraska Unicameral, and control House 350-87, Senate 68-32.  Tea Party claims moral victory and vows to run Palin again in 2020

        5. Listen to your own rightie Lou Dobbs on Fox, AC.  EU won't sanction Russia because it depends on natural gas imported from Russia via Ukrainian pipelines.  

  4. It's  conservative arithmetic, courtesy of ALEC

    Had Indiana required energy-efficiency programs years earlier, he said, the state might have avoided the need for Duke Energy’s $3.5 billion power plant in ­Edwardsport. That would have saved households about $6 a month they now pay in construction costs for the huge plant, versus the $2 they now pay for the energy-efficiency programs.

     

     

  5. Is Karl Rove, who really fell out of favor with his disasterous 2012 performance really going to try and make a political comback in Colorado?  The tea party people are taking credit for recent successes in Colorado and yet they don't like Rove, so why is Buck going along with what is apparently Rove's plan?

    Here is one article about Rove and the Tea Party:

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/01/Donations-to-Karl-Rove-s-Groups-Decline-98-After-Declaring-War-on-Tea-Party 

    Cory Gardener was a tea party hero back in 2010, but he too seems to have fallen out of favor. This article is old, but still may have some relevance.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/09/eric-erickson_n_3733681.html 

    The Democrats have not always depended on the kindness of strangers, but rather the sheer stupidity of the Republicans.  Whst is happening in Colorado with the races, Karl Rove, and the tea party doesn't make any sense to me….surely some one posting here has a clue.  

    So, have Rove and the Tea Party made peace and that is why Buck is going along with the"plan."  Has the Tea Party decided to support the Country Club Republicans whom they have been ridiculing all year?  Or, (fingers crossed) has Rove, with the support of the Big Money Republicans decided to take his stand against the Tea Party here in Colorado?  If so, does Rove have secret polls saying this will work?  Or, has he simply lost his mind?

    Waddams has already stepped into the fray by saying that the governor's race needs a "fresh face"….Waddams and Tancredo are long time adversaries. Does Waddams even count anymore for anything.

    But, finally, why did Buck, tea party favorite, drop out of the race in favor of

    Gardner?  Why are the various tea party groups in Colorado so silent about what is happening?  The only outrage is coming from Owen Hill, who getting support from the national Tea Party Express and evidently nobody else.

     

    1. There are "clues" aplenty, here and elsewhere.

      Unfortunately, you only see clues when they align with your view or when presented with 20/20 HS lenses.

      1. JBJK16

        I ask honest questions.  You don't have any answers, so you ridicule me and belittle my comment.  What are the "clues" that are so obvious?  What is my view? Military Science studies 20/20 HS all the time; they memorize battles with a view to learning what went wrong and what went right.  This is what sports teams do, also.  Don't you understand asking questions is how people learn?

        Yours is a  "playground comment", the kind of things kids say. I don't think you are only interested  in the "best candidate."  I think you are a "finger in the wind" kind of person…..no real thoughts, just jargon.

        Full disclosure, I am not interested in being a "worker bee" for OFA, collected and inputing data, for  pennies an hour,  so I have no reason to repeat the "Democratic party line."

         

        1.   Whst is happening in Colorado with the races, Karl Rove, and the tea party doesn't make any sense to me….surely some one posting here has a clue.  

          The R elite decided they know best how to compete and win. Buck was weak statewide- weaker than Gardner anyway. And he was a lousy fundraiser, either because he is really bad at it (statewide)  or he had no  support.  Either would be bad, the latter would clearly mean defeat.

          So, the elite step in, drop Buck into a safe race which they expect to hold anyway ( if Renfroe runs hard, ie seriously, I think it's his), and get Amycare out of the spotlight. The Rs running for gov (so far) are lame and will not win absent serious Green campaign or bizarre and impossible to plan on situation (Hickinlooper dies or quits, mail in ballots are disallowed, etc)

          You are just mad because OFA won't do what you want (whatever that is) and I hate the parties. Read Blueprint again. Pay special attention to chapter 4. Have a nice March.

          1. @JBJK16

            So, if your analysis is right, then Karl Rove and the Republican elities have decided to take a stand against the teaparties here in

            Colorado. We shall see.

            I really mad at the fact that good people get cancer.  I am really mad at a lot of the crap in this world.  I am really mad that children suffer.  There are  a lot of things in the real world that make me angry.  

            And I don't like the fact that you presume to know me and to project 

            emotions on me that I don't possess and that you somehow feel  that it is all right to do so.  You make my skin crawl.

             

    2. D,  Here is the calculation.

      Do the Republicans have a better chance of winning the Senate seat and holding CD4 if they run Gardner for Senate instead of Buck?

      They thought so.

      Time will tell.

      If you were Buck, and you were going to win the Senate nomination easily and then face Udall and Gardner came along, what would you do?

      The wise move is to take the forever Republican house seat and leave the up-in- the-air senate battle to Gardner.  Gardner, as a sitting  congressman and with his contacts is more likely to have the funds to have a better shot at taking out Udall.  If he does, great move all around.  If he does not, Buck is a Congressman and Gardner takes on Bennet in 2 years. The risk is Gardner's which is why he took his time to make a decision.

      1. @AC

        Okay. Makes sense.  I also think that Buck is fighting a serious illness. I will also make a very serious comment, that may sound superfluous,but I think it may be a concern.  If and when Buck wins the Congressional seat, he will be eligible for the best medical insurance as well as care at great hospitals in DC. 

        But why is Karl Rove involved? Why is he taking such a risk?  And, why are the various Tea Party groups so quiet? 

        1. D, He had qualtiy insurance and treatment so I do not see that as an issue.

          I don't know that Rove was involved.  I don't know that he wasn't.  

          There are several players on a national level who could have been part of the conversation, but it may have been as simple as Gardner calling the others about his getting in the race and them doing their own calculations about what was best for them.  Could some calls have been made to move things along?  Sure, but my sense is it was simply Gardner deciding what he wanted to do and the rest figuring out what that meant for them.  

          Stephens was not going to make it, so it was a face saving measure for her.

          Buck saw a diminshed chance of him being successful and the cd-4 opening being a nice consolation prize.  

          Hill apparently has difficulty reading tea leaves.

          The other candidates were never contenders.

          I think the Tea Party folks like Gardner and see he has a real chance to win.

          Owen Hill is not going to come off well by keeping in the race.  He is not ready for prime time, Gardner is, and the folks can see the difference.

          1. Boy, when you get lemons you go all in for sangria, dontcha?

            why did Gardner wait so long? Long enough that the R caucus is now meaningless. Long enough that he skips all the R debates without having to say he opts out. Long enough that Rove can come to town and long enough he can get some kind of deal if he doesn't win.

            At least you finally acknowledge Buck was weak.

            What TP groups? It seems to me that since the (low turnout) recalls are over, AFP has decided to spend their TP investment elsewhere (WI, KY, TX) where the voters aren't so purple.

          2. @AC,

            My questions were based on the fact that Rove was involved. 

            If he is not, then your analysis makes sense.  I think that Owen Hill doesn't expect to win or even place, I think he is just looking for a platform and is probably bored. This is just my opinion.

  6. While I do wish the Personhood folks would find something productive to do there foolish and anti-science delusional activities do turn out voters. When voters turn out CO becomes a better place because more Democrats win election

    1. Personhood has been very effective GOTV for liberals, because it is universally reviled, and the people of Colorado don't want government, courts and politicians in their doctor's exam rooms with them.

      1. Great for GOTV and the thing even gets defeated by wide margins in deep red Mississippi. I guess they must think it motivates their base but apparently, not nearly as much as it motivates everybody else.

  7. Here's a good example of a Dem candidate standing up instead of cowering over ACA.  Any Dem campaign ops dropping by should take note. And remember how great your advising our recalled Dem state legislators to hide from gun control legislation, leaving the field to righties to fabricate freely, and beg to be liked for other stuff worked.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/27/1280890/-Michigan-Democrat-taking-Koch-brothers-head-on-over-Obamacare?detail=email

    1. BC, there are two essential problems.

      One, the ACA is, has been, and is increasingly becoming, upopular.

      Two, it was a party line vote and would not have passed except for the vote of the incumbent Dem senators who are running.

      Saying it is a great law may play with the base, but will kill you with the middle who have already made up their mind it is not.

      It is just one of those take your medicine issues for the Dems in 2014.

          1. Keep in mind these are the numbers with about 50% not having been affected by the ACA.  As they are affected, the numbers will shift to the right.

          2. 56% want to keep it?!

            By what math is that failing?  

            Heck,  if 56% of Colorado Senate voters feel that way, Gardner is toast (~ 53 -47, or about the same as Bennett v Buck).

            Question : who voted to modify ACA and who voted 44 times to repeal it?

            Question: who supported federal disaster assistance when there was actual national disaster and who only voted for federal disaster assistance when it was in his backyard?

            Question: who thinks personhood makes sense?

             

            Stick with Buck. I live in CD 4, and I know what a chucklehead my congressman is.

          3. I listened to one of the people against Obamacare. She's very upset that she just got a hospital bill from 2 years ago. That will be paid by Medicare.

            That's right, somehow Obamacare is responsible in her mind for the hospital being behind in their charges that are covered by medicare.

            On the minus side, regardless of what she was told, she still believe that it's the fault of Obamacare. And she votes.

    1. No one really wants to cover this real time. Much better to have a HEADLINE years form now, after the remediation has stablized the radiation. Way, way after.  

      Reminds me how once upon a time the local reservoirs used to test and post bacteria count. After a while the counts always closed the lakes for recreation, so they stopped testing. Now the lakes are always open.

          1. I was married to a vet exposed to Agent Orange. It is for real, and incredibly damaging. We have got to stop treating our soldiers like they are little plastic GI Joes that we can throw away when we're done playing war somewhere.

            And Republican Senators blocking expansion of veteran's benefits?  Fucking explain that away, GOP apologists. Where's your patriotism now?

            In that link you posted, BC, I notice that the sailors are wearing standard camo and scarves around their faces, as they scrub the decks free of "radiation contamination".

            Scarves will not protect from radiation poisoning. I thought that we knew that, after 65 years of being an atomic power.

            This shit makes me so angry.

             

            1. Active Duty military are cannon fodder, paid barely above poverty level, equipped with substandard gear (while defense contractors "Blackwater/Xe/Academi" are decked out with the best, paid TWELVE times the going rate, funded by the same tax dollars, and protected by our military). 

              Fallen military get sent home in a box, and the assholes that sent them there wipe away a tear, and get to pretend it's just like being in WWII (Greatest Generation, and all that). The family gets a flag and a one-time payout, and the books are closed.  

              Injured military are sent to filthy, roach-riddled hospitals to get care from overworked staff trying to cope on a shoestring budget. They're a drain on the coffers, you see… we need that money to give to another damn defense contractor.  But, there are non-profits to help them.  It's not our job as a country anymore, since they're of no use.

              1. Yeah, Cur, but when a badly injured defense contractor comes home, there's no insurance and not even a subpar VA for him to use.  No Wounded Warriors, not even a VFW.  One major concussion and all the extra money they got paid is gone. 

                1. @exlurker19

                  That is the chance they take for the big bucks. 

                  Some of the defense contractors are ex-military and should be able to get some VA benefits.

                2. I'd be fine with contractors getting the same pay scale as regular grunts, probably with upgrades all around from the cost savings of not paying out the wazoo to companies like KBR, and the same protections and programs once they return to civilian life.

                  Same accountability, too, as opposed to the zero accountability they have now.

                  1. How about instead of paying often corrupt, rogue private contractors many times what we used to pay troops for the same work, we stop using the private contractors (seems insane since the reason for using them is that the private sector is so much more efficient and therefore costs so much less, obviously not the case) and give those jobs and enough pay to our troops so their families don't have to worry about having their food stamps cut.  Of course, in the meantime it would be nice of us not to cut their families food stamps, wouldn't it? Support the troops and all that?

                    Not enough people signing up for our all volunteer military? Maybe if they got paid a decent wage, especially in this slow economy, more would. You know. Free market, supply and demand. Any of this ringing any rightie bells?

            2. What Curmudgeon said.  And it's nothing new. It's pretty much the way societies have treated their troops since there was any such thing as organized troops.  

          2. From Vice:

            A new study published in the journal Environmental Research reveals that Air Force reservists were exposed to higher levels of [Agent Orange] than previously known (or admitted). Many of the same aircraft that dispersed Agent Orange during the war were later used as transport vehicles during (relative) peacetime, primarily between the years 1971 and 1982. And tests taken many years after those transports show the planes still contained dangerous levels of the chemical. Initial testing of the planes after the war and before peacetime service was nonexistent.

            The US Air Force and Department of Veterans Affairs have previously denied benefits to those exposed to the chemical from these planes, claiming it wasn’t a harmful level of exposure. Researchers have now proven this to be false. The study used the US Army's own algorithms and samples taken from the aircraft to estimate how much the post-war level of exposure would have affected the body, with the results demonstrating that the levels in those aircraft were unacceptable under USAF and VA policies.

  9. Understanding the resident idiot

     

    But Galileo!

    The final dimension of argument I want to mention is perhaps the silliest of all, and we see it in widespread use far beyond the area of climate science denialism. The idea is simple. All major advances in science have come about when almost everyone thinks a certain thing but they are all wrong, but a small number of individuals know the truth, like Galileo’s attack on a geocentric universe.

    While it is true that such things have happened, in history, they have not happened that often in science. For example, Einstein’s revision of several areas of science fit with existing science but modified it, though significantly. Subatomic theory did not replace the atom, but rather, entered the atom. The discovery and characterization of DNA was a major moment in biology, but the particulate nature of inheritance had long been established. Darwin did not change the existing science of nature, but rather, verified long held ideas about evolution and, dramatically, proposed a set of mechanisms not widely understood in his day. Science hardly ever gets Galileoed, and even Galileo did not Galileo science; he Galileoed religion. Even his insightful contribution was accretive.

    There is a demented logic behind the Galileo claim. If every one thinks one thing, and one person thinks something different, that high ratio of differential is itself proof that the small minority is correct. But the truth is that consensus, or what we sometimes call “established science,” is usually coeval with alternative beliefs the vast majority of which are wrong, most of which do not even come from the science itself, but rather, from sellers of snake oil, individuals or entities that would benefit from the science being questioned, or from individuals with delusional ideas. Even if there is now and then a view held by a small minority that is actually more correct than the majority view, we can’t establish veracity by measuring rarity. Chances are, a view of nature held by only a few is wrong. This simple numbers game is not how we should be seeking truth, but if one does engage in the numbers game, then dissenting views of established science can be assumed to be wrong, if you were going to place a bet.

    1. Far too simplistic and polite.

      Instead – the problem is mainly two factors.

      First, faith based conclusions.  I believe what I believe and my faith is strong.  Until I believe something different- no science, no evidence, no anything has any significance.  Belief is utmost, reason and deduction are too human.

      Second – profit motive. If I profit from ignoring the dangers of tobacco – therefore tobacco cannot be dangerous. Cars (the main argument against seat belts for 50+ years was it creates a "false" impression that cars are unsafe).  Azodicarbonamide. (look it up – no really, you should.)  HFCS (another to look up and avoid).

       

       

  10. What is wrong with the damn code on this site?

    It has totally sucked since the conversion from SoapBlox.

    What most irks me today is that I can see that the comments on the WE OT went from 36 to 50 while I was away, but when I click into it  NONE of the posts are higlighted and labelled "New!"  I will no longer open multiple tabs of the diaries I want to read, because that is a surefire way to not have any of the new posts labelled as such.

    It wasn't letting me log in yesterday using Chrome and I got a cached day-old front page with none of Friday's stories.  It worked fine on IE.

    I'm really not interested in clearing my cache, or some other under the hood computer-savy trick I shouldn't have to do.  The website should be user friendly on its own.  It used to work just fine before the "improvements."

    What gives guvs?

     

  11. Note to TPTB: the home page no longer shows the weekend open threads or any of the diaries past Thursday. Not sure if there's a glitch – the only place I found this thread was in "recent posts" when I would have expected them to be on the home page.

    1. I am getting updated posts on the computer, although all out of sync.  But, my IPad has not posted anything since #56?  We just had the IPAD checked as it is running out of warranty and it was AOK?  So is anyone else getting this particular problem?

    1. Drivers start your engines.

      "Gardner slammed Udall for voting to approve Obama’s health-care overhaul, raise taxes and “infringe Second Amendment Rights.” He said he will run on economic development, responsible energy production, a clean environment and education."

      washingtontimes.com

        1. Paraphrasing the above…He said he will run on tax breaks for the wealthy, "drill, baby, drill", evisceration of regulations, and vouchers!!

  16. Trying to keep my boxes right, BC. This goes out to our resident provacateur:

    I sincerely doubt that you ever actually do a "review of literature", including points of view opposing your own, since you didn't even notice that the two citations I posted were for emergency room admissions for septic and botched abortions, not for "deaths. I gave two good citations for that info.  I've seen the 33% figure for admissions to the ER for "incomplete" miscarriages, and botched or septic abortions, pre-Roe, cited several times by medical and academic people.

    If you want a scholarly, objective discussion on deaths from abortion in the US vs. other countries, see: "Straight Dope", http://bit.ly/1kDJrCZ or the book, "The Worst of Times" or Mother Jones, "The Way it Was". Otherwise, STFU.

  18. Pols,

    The whole site is glitchy, very glitchy for me.  I thought it was just on my work computer where my tech "NEW and IMPROVED" something and the whole dang thing is a disaster.  I think I need a new tech.  Howsomever, the site is glitchy here at home and I don't let him touch this computer. 

  20. Buggy software–which should be taken out behind the woodshed like David Stockman exposing the lies of 'Reaganomics'–will not let me sign in or comment on the Cory Gardner/Devil diary. So I make my forced admission here. Our sleuth-like troll got me!  I am Club Twitty, like 'changing' the 'name' of 'global warming' to 'climate change,' I had hoped to fool you silly liberal rubes… alas!  

    1. Tell you what, asshole…

      You want another war so bad?  Go yourself.  I'm sick of chickenshit Patriots like you clamoring to send our people to their deaths to make yourselves feel like badasses.

       

      1. So we are not going to participate in the preparatory work for the G8 to be held in Sochi.  That ought to give Putin pause.  

        What the hell are they in the G8 any way?  Their economy is not in the top 10.

        Can anybody get serious about consequences?

    3. Because having a military budget larger than the ten next largest nations' budgets combined is not enough; and the reason we have not ignored our allies in Europe's advice and negotiations whioch certainly are happening, and launched another unilateral war.  

      AC is an insufferable dumbass, I am not sure there is any other conclusion to draw.  

  23. No Republican chickenhawk has any credibility on any war-related issue, until they use the existing war allocation to expand veteran's benefits.

    They complain that these are "borrowed dollars". That didn't bother them at all when they funded the Iraq and Afghanistan wars on borrowed dollars. It didn't bother them when 9 fricking billion dollars was "lost" in Iraq.

    It didn't bother them when our taxpayer -funded bribes bought gold toilets for Afghan warlords, or funded contractors who  had no accountability,  who made faulty showers that electrocuted soldiers,  and raped and murdered female soldiers for fun.

    But now, when it could really make a difference for overworked VA facilities, jobs programs and rehab for vets, suddenly chickenhawks are all fiscally conservative. You're worthless, slimebagging hypocrites, and every veteran and veteran's family member knows it.  And we'll remember in November.

      1. I've been wrestling (figuratively) with VA bureaucrats all of this week, trying to get appropriate care for my ex, a Vietnam vet. VA has really caring people and good programs, (except for their IT, which sucks, but they're working on it. DavidT8, are you bidding?)

        Veteran's Admin just doesn't have the resources to care for all of the aging boomer and post-boomer vets, plus all of the new guys and gals coming home with missing body parts and severe trauma from the middle eastern wars.

        So that last GOP vote against funding veteran's benefits really pissed me off. 

        Then, having our resident chickenhawk posting a cartoon implying that Obama is "chicken" for not declaring war on Russia yesterday, well….

        I've been in "squeaky wheel" mode for awhile now. Not nice-lady mode, at all. Nice ladies get ignored. I'll be OK after I shovel some snow or something.

        1. Our resident librarian might consider the historical role "military overreach" played in the demise of super powers.  The adults understand our credit card from the previous, unfunded wars is maxed out.  The claims by Rummy the war would "pay for itself" didn't quite turn out as promised. 

          While discussing America's "diminished leverage" abroad, he said politicians in Washington "clearly haven't read the history about the end of empires where you have…  overreaching abroad.

          For many conservatives, they believe it's Midnight in America. 

          "Republics last a limited amount of time and they start to fail on fiscal issues… If we do nothing, we'll have a large lower class with marginal incomes and a tiny wealthy elite."

          Conservatives this past week blocked budget increases to address the staggering backlog of veteran care, yet amongst this chaos the very same conservatives holding our veterans hostage balk at ending the fossil fuel subsidies for the richest industry the world has ever known; we'll continue to fund a military industrial complex at nearly twice the pre-9/11 levels, and General Electric will continue to pay no federal taxes.  All the while making the poster child of our ills hungry children, welfare moms and the least amongst us.

          All amidst the Ukranian war cries of the chickenhawks.

          It's Kabuki Theater at its finest.

           

           

           

          1. "We'll have a large lower class with marginal incomes,and a tiny wealthy elite"

            If we cannot turn back the Republican Party and the corporate free market operatives ("the Chicago Boys"), we will most assuredly end up in such a circumstance. The condition you mention above is the primary desired result of the "free market experiment".

            The corporatists need to install a modern day Pinochet. In order to pull off the demise of American democracy,the next Republican president would have to be an unscrupulous, cold, hearted, megalomaniac, A highly motivated zealot with no empathy for anyone outside his tightly knit circle of associates. Do the names Rand Paul or Ted Cruz come close to that description?

            Progressives and liberals and socially responsible libertarians must come together to deny office to anyone who sells out the 99% to the uberrich. Income fairness and opportunity equality must become the most important issue in this nations' dominant narrative.

            Americans must come to understand the truth in time to turn away this party of thieves and liars. It is their express goal to drive American culture into third world status, sparking a new Feudalism that will allow corporations to squeeze even more enormous profits from a workforce scrambling to survive, willing to work for ever diminishing compensation. I point to the recent bamboozling of the auto workers in Tennessee. Lied to and pressured by their state legislators, they voted against their own well being.

            Aldous Huxley was right. 

          1. Don't know, but first Congress has to pass a bill… yeah, I know.

            There are quite a few IT jobs in Government at usajobs

            I don't know why IT at the VA is so sucky, but it has been for years. They kept all of their records on paper way after every other agency was digitized.

            I don't think it's all funding shortages, either. Gen Shinsecki was supposed to modernize it, but it still seems pretty crappy from a client viewpoint.

            1. @mj55

               I thought that the VA medical services were the first to digitalize all their medicalrecords. Now benefit requests and personnel records may still be paper and filling up warehouses.

      2. I hadn't heard of Senator Lathrop before, but he's got it right. "We are called to govern, to make policy. Not to spout campaign rhetoric. "

        So is Nebraska gridlocked, or are they moving forward?

         

  25. I am going to post info about tomorrow's early morning drive time local talk radio as the fun may be all over before Monday's Open Thread gets posted.  Here is the line-up:

    560 KLZ   Randy Corporon  5am-7am  Conservation talk show, tea party? I don’t know. The site is advertising a meeting of the Arapaphoe Teaparty Sunday PM.

    630 KHOW   Mandy Connell  5am to 10am “Republican Talking   Points” host from someplace in the South….but she has gotten the many republican candidates on

    710 KNUS    Peter Boyles 5am to 9am    BFF of Tom Tancredo

                          Dan Caplis  9am to 11am

    850 KOA    Morning news 5am to 10 am

    Eleven hours of local right wing talk radio every morning.  KOA is news, but it does lean right and does get the candidates. What I will be listening for is:

    1) Will Beauprez announce early enough to catch drive time?  If so, on whose shows will he appear?

    2) Are all the tea party folks on board with Cory?  If so, on whose shows will they appear?  if not? on whose shows will they protest?

    3) Will the other gobenatorial candidates appear on any or all shows to comment on Beauprez?  

    4) Will anything new or unexpected happen?

    5) Will Karl Rove appear anyplace?  Will he be mentioned?

    Please ladies, control the impulse to comment, if you possible can.  I write for those who might not know about this lineup.  Colorado hit Sunday  talk shows with the Cory news.  The consensus from what I heard was that this is a

    "reproachmont" between the tea party and the elites in the Republican party.  

    I don't know. 

    Spoiler alert:  The national talking heads seem to think that Colorado stands a good chance of going red and with it the US Senate.

    1. The national talking heads such as Glenn, LIMBOsevic, Hannity, and others?

       

      They have zero credibility and it will NOT turn red as long as I live and breathe here in Colorado and I suspect there are others who feel the same. We had Nightmare and Dullard. I would not rather go through having two R morons as my senators in my early years. 

       

      No, I think Colorado will remain a solid D for a very long time in the national showcase, but we'll have a few fruitflies.

       

       

      1. @dp

        No, I don't listen to Fox, except sometimes to Shepherd Smith who is really funny.  I listen to MSNBC, the ABC Sunday show, CNN Sunday show and  Meet the Press….the Ukraine took up most of the news…but the panel discussions were on mid-terms and Colorado was mentioned.  

        You are aware that the National Democratic Party is concerned about losing the US Senate to the Republicans, right?  

        As for your assertions, If wishes were horses, then beggers would ride.

  26. During most of Sunday afternoon, when I tried to get on to Coloradopols, I could not.  I kept getting a message about "Data base error"

    Anyone else?

    1. Shorter version….

       

      Oy Vey!  The talking heads are spreading rumors of uncertainty! (Almost as if their pundit paychecks depended on it….)!! All is lost!  

      Dammit!  Colorado is going to be a DEEP BLUE SHUTOUT 110% of the vote 9at least!)!!!

      God, this site is buggy.

       

       

      1. @little CT

        Are you aware that the National Democratic  party is focusing all its fund raising on the US Senate and foregone the US House.  It is the Republicans that very  much want Democrats to be complacent.  Why shouldn't I assume that you are working for them?

          1. Well, Karl, I've got some bad news for you here in Colorado.  CD6 isn't a foregone conclusion and Andrew's going to get plenty of national money. In general, though, you righties are correct that getting all the way back to a House majority is more than highly unlikely which is why more money will be going to keeping the Senate, far more doable. Bet you'd love to see us lose the Senate while failing to take the House but don't count on it, Karl. Most of us (but certainly not all, if you get my drift) have more sense than a piece of toast. And I wouldn't put it past CT to rip you a new one on his way back out into the world of the living.  wink

    2. @BC

      Correcting false assumptions is not a debate. 

      It is good that you have finally, after years, promised not to reply to my comments.  But, the compulsion remains when you see my name, you must respond to comments that other people make.  If you could just work on that, I think you would be better off and have far more time for more constructive activities.

       

      1. Dear dwyer,

        I have been trying to avoid responding to your generally insipid paranoia, but the above comments to ct and BC are so over-the-top-arrogant, I think I must inform you that you have now officially earned "troll" status. I am trying to remember if I have ever encountered anyone quite as passive-aggressive as you.

        I am afraid you are now, in my mind, lumped in a category that includes posters like Andrew Carnegie, ArapaGOP,  Libertad , and a host of other tragically unhinged minds. I think, perhaps, my decision to ignore you is a mistake. I think, rather, it would be better if I (and each of us, really) take off the gloves most of us have been using in dealing with your insufferable tripe.

        If the image you want to project to the world is that of a know-it-all Chicken Little, you have succeeded wildly. If, on the other hand, you would like the world to see you as a thoughtful, fair minded, political observer…epic fail.

        From this point on, or at least until I tire of the sport, I will try to respond to every one of your posts with the most asinine, objectionable, comments I can muster.

        It's OK …don't thank me. You have earned it.

         

         

        1. Ask youself, DC, exactly what will you be accomplishing in terms of movimg a constructive debate forward?  There is an awful lot of anger among people on this blog, directed toward me if that makes you feel better. Trust me, I can take it.

          I think the anger comes from a sense of powerless and a sinking sense that things are not going well for the Democrats, among the stalwarts here.  So, when I cite "Blue Print" and ask people to read it, that is "trolling" and paranoia?  When I cite the six right wing victories in the last six months, that is "trolling?" I have every right to address the major problems I see with my party and I will continue to do so.

          To link to Sabado's Crystal Ball and his current projections on the Senate is trolling? To cite Steve Kornacki on "MSNBC" is paranoia?  NO, it is not.

           

          1. When have you not predicted loss and calamity for Dems and endless victory for the right? On every issue that right beats their drum for.  For years and years now in every single post.  Yeah the Dem committees are organzing to keep the Senate. yes, it will be close.  Its a divided nation.  The Senate is the body most in the balance, and its in election year. The DSCC is saying it will be close and they need support.  How is that news?  Its what we send our donations in for them to do, organize with a sense of urgency.  Its not any insight. Its hand wringing bordering on consern trolling and for most people it grew old about three cycles ago.  You know, when Romney I mean McCain were heading to a landslide.  

            1. I predicted a win in 2010 for the MA Senate race and was right. I raised alarms over the possibility of a Republican take over of the House in 2010…but, HELL, so did the then Obama's Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and he was vilified and right, as I think I was.   I was wrong in 2012 and have said so…

              I was a Romanoff supporter and I don't like Bennet and Buck was neck and neck with Bennet until the Meet the Press disaster.  

              I was shocked that the Walker recall failed.  I did not predict it.  I did not predict any result in the local recalls…but I did report how talk radio was being used to promote the recalls.  I was not surprised that the Douglas county school Board stayed right wing, I never saw the Jefferson County School Board conservative turnover.  Nor  did anyone else.

              I have suggested legislative remedies to handle the  problems with the recall:

              1) Referring to the ballot a measure to correct the recall petition deadlines with the mail ballot deadline.  Never even made it to the talking stage.

              2) Passing legislation that recall petitions had to be returned to the Secretary of State, even if the recall effort was canceled or the official resigned, was that  the petitions are considered open records and a valid count could be made to see if the recall would have been successful.  That would avoid scare/blackmail tactics.  Never even considered.

              3) Legislation that would require background checks on all petition workers.   On the agenda? nope.

              I also make sure that people who  are "too good" to listen to talk radio, know what is being said on the over 100 hours  a week of local right wing political talk radio, on our public airwaves. 

              If you really think I am a troll, then ignore me.  I remember one Open Thread where there were fifty plus responses to AC….calling him names.  What did that accomplish????

              2. So have you asked your legislators to work on the above proposals? Because I kind of like them.

                dwyer, you know I am an inquisitive bitch. I do check out right wing sites, and find interesting (to me) things on them. I write long, link-laden posts that most probably don't read.

                but I don't analyze other Polster's emotions, diagnosing a "sense of powerlessness", nor do I post condescending remarks like "If you could just work on that, I think you would be better off and have far more time for more constructive activities, or call people "little ct". I think that you should stop writing those things.

                It's fine for you to be a pessimist. We need pessimists. I'm an, apparently incurable, optimist. We need those, too.

                I don't think that you're a troll, although, like a troll, you do often try to provoke emotional replies to your posts. And you succeed. You piss people off. Maybe that is what you intended, I don't know.

                  I would suggest having a positive "do this!" action sign off on your pessimistic posts – like, write to the legislators about this, and include a link to the CO  Assembly page, although most people here probably have that info already.

                I don't find personal back-and-forth feuding to be fascinating, online or in real life. I have almost no patience for it.

                This advice from me is worth what you paid for it.

                1. Hey mj55,

                  I am throwing down the bs flag.  My comments are made in response to the crap that I have been receiving for anything I post. My posts are usually not in response to someone else.  For example, I never responded to AC comments, joining that pile on.   He responded to  me  about questions I posed about the Cory switch and there was an exchange that I think was informative. 

                   I usually  have not been responding to the belittling hostile kind of crap that is a response to whatever I post.  For example,  I said I didn't have a clue what was going on with theRepublicans, the tea party and Karl Rove.  The response from JBJK blogger was that there were plenty of clues, I just only knew things that matched my views.  That was crazy, I don't even know who JBJK is. AC gave  rational responses.  

                  This weekend I decided to respond when I am attacked.  I have decided that I will not be passive when I am called names or more importantly, when what I have said is misquoted or distorted in order to justify the hostility.  I don't like it and it is not fair.

                  And I do believe that most democrats do feel powerless and that frustration boils over into anyone who says that outloud.  I will only refer to your comments after the Giron defeat….that you did not feel you were being listened to.  If you have posted anything that suggest that you now feel you have the ear of the party regulars, I missed it.

                  You are absolutely right that I should be putting action points on my comments.  When I first posted those suggestions, I was under the misimpression that some people here were Democratic activitists or that legislators actually reviewed what was posted here.  I now know that is not true.

                   

                   

                   

              1. I know.  And I want to think its motivated by wanting a progressive future.  But defeatism leads to, well, defeat.  Its like skiing, keep your eye on the line you want to make, not the tree you want to …. WHAM!

                1. I thought that kind of guru "think and it will come true:" went out in the early 80s.  If all of this is just about "visualization"…..let me tell you, I am a cancer survivor….guess who the survivors are in one of my groups?   The angry people, not the "nicest nicest dreamers….although I really shouldn't say that….I am just thinking of two or three studies….PWC,,,people with cancer deal with their own reality and I do respect that. Fighting back is my way.

                  I despise the idea that "all you have to do is visualize", and if that is what this is all about, then I understand all of you much better and it makes me very sad, not angry.

                  @little ct

                  Okay.  I am not a skier.  I have never been in a place where I could afford a broken bone. So, I just do not understand this statement"

                  Its like skiing, keep your eye on the line you want to make, not the tree you want to …. WHAM! – See more at: http://coloradopols.com/diary/54943/weekend-open-thread-55#comment-541081

                   

                  I thought I was pointing out where the trees were.

                   

                   

                  1. I am hardly saying all you have to do is visualize and I cannot believe that anyone who has read my posts or diaries over the years would imagine I am saying that.  I am more in line with the maxim: Don't agonize, organize.  Its not New Age guru advice that health follows happiness, that one's outlook on the world determines in large degree how their interactions go.  And that bitterness, distress, and anger are cautic emotions that affect both health and what people get out of life.  Its established.  

                    But I am glad you are a cancer survivor, however that worked for you, what matters is you keep doing what works for you.  Stay healthy.  

                    1. PS: I have been invovled in many campaigns where I was told we could never win, we were arrayed against the odds, the big boys, the monied interest, the bureacrats, the government, that machine. I was right and the doomsayers were wrong, because I did not allow their gloom and doom to distract me fromt he hard work required to win.  Being aware of the odds and oppostion is good, being fixated on them is a strategic failure IMO.  

                    3. Of course no one with an ounce of perception would imagine you were saying that and no one with an iota of intellectual integrity would imply you were saying anything like that.  But zero perception and zero intellectual honesty (not to mention not much intellect period) is what you're dealing with here, ct. Not a troll. Just a pompous, insufferable, self righteous, know nothing, know it all fool. 

              2. And what is it, that you all want me to say?  That there were no right wing victories in Colorado in the last six months?  That all is well with the dems?  

                I said that the Supeme Court decisions on the contraceptive mandate  and perhaps gay marriage would be critical in determining the 2014 mid term elections  outcomes.  I also said I did not know what those decisions would be nor whom would be helped.  I just said they would be critical.  That is called anticipating and preparing various plans to deal with the various outcomes. But, I don't think anyone posting here is in any position to influence democratic planning or strategizing. But critiicizing me for even thinking this way is perfectly okay.  That is something you all can do.

                I also said that how individual voters were affected by ACA would also help determine the 2014 election outcomes.  I said I don't know what that would be.  I did cite the only two examples I know where Obama supporters were negatively impacted by ACA.  For the record, on the MSM and MSNBC, except forthe non-Democratic paid consultants, seem to think that the overall impact of ACA on individuals would be negative. 

                Now any Republican checking out this blog could conclude that "hey, no problem" dems are just attacking people who don't agree with the group think.  Any independent trying to see if the "progressives" are going to counter, with facts, what the right wing is doing, could read mj55.  But, what they would mostly come away with is all the crap that they would have to wade through…..what a turn off.

                  1. @ct.

                    This is not a campaign.  This is a blog.  I have worked on campaigns, winning ones, losing ones and one were the candidate was killed in a hotel kitchen.  I am aware of campaign manners.  I would never, ever, say " we are losing," or quit before the last vote was counted.  I would say "they won't talk to us up in Adams county" if that were true, because a campaign needs information. 

                    My goal line is protecting the Constitution.  I believe I describe that a few days ago and got in response, some trite slap.  My concern is that the model that worked for the dems in 2004 was used to promote #66 and did not work. That is why I keep citing Blue Print. We should be talking about #66.  I think there is general consensus that the tax increase was too great and the Denver vote was not big enough.  I believe that the campaign commercials were not appropriate to what was happening in Denver and that resulted in a low turnout.  The is how it failed.  The question that has not been answered is why didn't the proponents of #66 realize that the tax increase was going to be to big and that the Denver campaign had to be  focused on Denver concerns?   I argue that the top down model, particularly when the big money is out of state and not instate as it was in 2004, is the problem.

                    The data model that Obama used successfully in 2012 may not work in the 2014 mid-terms.  It is absolutely a top down strategy.  Data collection and then acting on the data calls for really tight controls.

                     

                    The real tragedy will be if the dems organize and get out the vote that came out in 2012, only those voters don't vote democratic.

                     

                    1. @ct

                      As an aside, there are wonderful people who are happy and get hit with the worst most aggressive cancer, some of them are kids. ….there used to be a belief, even in oncology circles, that patients should "visualize" their cancers away  or that somehow patients were responsible for their cancers and it was important to "be happy and optimistic."  I had seen that approach used on a dear loved one who was near death and some idiot walzed in and promoted that "think happy thoughts."  The particular approach has fallen out of favor, UNLESS, a patient requests that kind of help.

                      So, if I overreacted to your comments, it comes from those personal experiences.

                      To be realistic is not to be pessimistic. To be insistent that dems have to look at the recent failures in order to understand what happened so that they are not repeated, is not to be negative.

                  2. My advice, ct? Don't bother. It's always the same old I'm so much older and wiser and you're such group think idiots crap. Never mind, as a group, we disagree with one another quite regularly.

                    Catch the one about working on campaigns including the one where the candidate was killed in the kitchen? That should put us in our place.

                    If we ever want to know what dwyer looks like, all we have to do is look up "insufferable" in the dictionary. Dwyer's pic is bound to be there.

                    1. @BC

                      You do a lot of projecting on what I say….I don't understand your need to do so.  If I try to explain the generational  context from which I speak, you accuse me of saying I am "older and wiser."   That is, to me, crazy making.  What ever I say, you twist it.  I don't know why.  I don't know why you think that CT or JB or anyone is not capable of responding to my comments without  editorializing from you.  Perhaps they have asked for your help.  But why?  I honestly don't understand why you  just don't ignore me? 

    2. Very unusual for others to be having problems when I'm not but so far, I'm good. If it makes any difference I get here via google chrome.

  29. The front page says there are now 16 comments in the Monday Open Thread, but when I click on the open thread it logs me out, will not let me sign in and only has the first comment by A Cowardly (Chickenhawk) Troll.  I'm sure your all's other comments are brillant and that I am missing some stupid trollish cartoons.  

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

120 readers online now

Newsletter

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