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%
March 02, 2014 01:46 PM UTC
33 Comments
David, I think that is a start. I would add the following.
Kick'em out of the G-8, bar access to US banking system, isolate them economically by all means availiable, kick out all of their diplomatic folk, do not grant any visas to their citizens. I would do everything I could, short of sending troops, to inflict pain.
And then what happens in Syria & Iran where they're cooperating (some) with us? What happens to Europe if they shout off their oil & gas deliveries?
Do we improve things if we shut off all interaction with everyone there? Having regular people from there come here lets them see directly our society, which hopefully has them think a bit better of democracy.
David, we have been played in both Syria and with Iran. What do we lose? In Syria they have not handed over the gas. In Iran they are still capable of making a nuke.
If you want to avoid sending in troops and you want to avoid the next Georgia, Ukraine, etc, you need them to pay a price so that is calculated in the next time they are in the mood again.
Well, gee, David, It's worked so well with Cuba.
I agree with you. The Unites States should inflict economic pain on the Russians. The pipelines will be blocked or blown-up only if the Russians invade.
Ironically, the oil and gas boom, especially the gas boom, in the U.S., due primarily to fracking, is already having a negative impact on the Russian economy which is based on oil and gas production, because we no longer need to import liquified natural gas. In other words our oil and gas production is now tied directly to our foreign policy. Increased U.S. production will harm the Russians economically even more.
The Russians are a nation that is not only a hallow shell of what the Soviet Union was, but due to population decline it is weakening as each year passes. We should use our economic muscle to push them back in the Ukraine.
The old wars were about oil. The new wars will be over water and natural gas (and to David's point yesterday, yes, Russia would go to war to maintain conttrol of these pipelines:
Mike, I suggest we do basically all things short of war to inflict pain.
What do you suggest?
So far, we have been just talk.
AC, doing "all things short of war" has been frequently used as reason by one side or the other to start one. Need an example? "Weapons fo mass destruction" comes to mind. The Treaty of Versailles is another. To paraphrase G. Gordon Liddy, if you pull out a gun and point it at someone, you better be ready to pull the trigger.
AC – you posted a picture over the weekend that insinuates POTUS was a "chicken" for forging food stamp dollars from the mighty military sword. (I assume you are already aware that food stamp use amongst veterans is rising – which made your cartoon all the more ironic).
I, for one, appreciate the fact the Prez doesn't have a hair trigger on his foreign policy. Deploying our soft power first is always a better strategy than "Ready, Fire, Aim!"
03/27/2003, Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary
03/30/2003, Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
05/01/2003, George W. Bush, President
05/09/2003, Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary (phone interview with Vanity Fair)
07/02/2003, George W. Bush, President
07/24/2003, Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
This is ridiculous. The Russians are not ready to go to war with America. They are counting on Obama's weakness. We need to stand up for Ukraine with military force if needed.
Moddy- I'm a combat veteran of the previous military misadventure buythe South China Sea so if there's any military intervening to be done you just hustle your little con tail down to your nearest Army or Marine recruiter and sign up- specify a combat arms MOS preferably infantry.
We need to work with the nations we are allied with in Europe, not launch a unilateral action. Obama's weakness my butt. People like you have no sense or perspecitve. I am so sick of Chickenhawks.
So you're a European loving commie? Who needs them? Bet you even like France!
I guess the most important question is, "What CAN we do about Ukraine?" There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of options.
What to do……Mocking Putin? I can do that all day.
Boycotts work, over long periods of time, but how would we find out which companies to target?
Alinsky said to just pick one egregious one to target (yes, AC, I have read Alinsky, and I would guess that you have not. Very practical guy). So….which American company holds a fair amount of Russian wealth, is heavily tied in to military spending – and has a product which Americans would normally buy?
Or… an empowering Ukrainian NGO that uses money effectively?
Then one would need a vigorous social media campaign to spread the word, but we're all pretty good at that.
Amazing.
An interesting question – can Dubai get enough gas to Europe to cover what they presently import from Russia? If so, shutting down purchases for even 1 month would have an incredible impact on Russia.
The second LNG export facility, at Quintana Island, Texas is under construction. The third, in Lake Charles, Lousiana is being approved now. The first is already operating at Sabine Pass, Louisiana. Together the three will be able to export 5.6 billion cubic ft. per day, which, as nearly as I can calculate, is about what Russia supplies to Europe daily. The problem is…only one is now operational.
While it 's too late to help in this particular crisis at this particular time, If we had started seriously developing new energy technologies decades ago, that would have freed us all, wherever we live, from dependence on fossil fuels and the regimes holding and controlling access to them. No country would be able to use access to their fossil fuel resources as a weapon to hold over anyone's head.
Seems like the expense of such development would have been worth it. Imagine not having to spill blood for finite energy resources. Especially since finite resources are, you know, finite, and alternatives will one day have to be found no matter what. We should probably save as much blood as possible for the coming water wars anyway. Those are going to be doozies.
Americans still don't realize that the security costs of an oil-dependent economy are a huge economic drag.
I don't want to stray off topic, or hijack David's thread, but the political implication of the administraions naive foreign policy will take a toll. Dem Senator Coons, who is in a safe seat suggested:
Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) told an audience of thousands of pro-Israel activists on Sunday morning that Russian President Vladimir Putin had been encouraged to invade the Crimea region of Ukraine partly because of the Obama administration's weakness in responding to Syria's crossing of the "red line" on chemical weapons.
http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2014/03/02/Democrat-Sen-Blames-Obama-for-Ukraine
Here is how it is playing out in Gallop's Presidential three-day tracking poll, faborable 40%, unfavorable 56% which is an all-time high for Obama.
I don't think our foreign policy should be driven by politics, but our foreign policy successes, or in this case failures, do show up in polling.
Does this mean you won't vote for Putin in the Gop primary??? Breitfart.com is not a good source to link to…they are wrong about everything and are nothing more that a forum for folks who lack critical thinking skills…I have read your winger rants and that is good…free speech and all, but you are on the wrong side of history, and support the group who is doing everything in their power to destroy OUR nation…and either you are ingorant or are a paid shill for the wingers/baggers…Folks like you are tearing this country apart…for what? For money? Power? JESUS? I'm am sorry if I have offended you in any way, but you are what is wrong with this country, my friend…
Sam, I disagree with you.
That does not make me ignorant or paid by others, it means I disagree with you.
Leave open the possibility that you might not be right about everything and you may grow as a person. If you don't, you won't.
Just my opinion.
You have not offended me, and I hope I have not offended you.
Because John Kerry, Chamberlain, Breibart!
Neville Chamberlain reincarnated?
"STEPHANOPOULOS: All those violations, sir. So what's the penalty for what Russia has already done?
KERRY: Well, we are busy right now coordinating with our counterparts in many parts of the world. Yesterday, the president of the United States had an hour and a half conversation with President Putin. He pointed out importantly that we don’t want this to be a larger confrontation. We are not looking for a U.S.-Russia, East-West redux here. What we want is for Russia to work with us, with Ukraine. If they have legitimate concerns, George, about Russian speaking people in Ukraine, there are plenty of ways to deal with that without invading the country. They have the ability to work with the government, they could work with us, they could work with the UN. They could call for observers to be put in the country. There are all kinds of alternatives. But Russia has chosen this aggressive act, which really puts in question Russia’s role in the world and Russia’s willingness to be a modern nation and part of the G8.
I think there are, you know, they are inviting the possibility of very serious repercussions on trade, on investment, on assets, asset freeze, visa bans, on the potential of actions by the global community against this unilateral step."
Pathetic.
This from the guy who esposes "eveything just short of war".
So now you want war?
A big issue is we have a treaty with Ukraine which might require us to go to war. Disavowing the treaty would lead to greater global instability and increases in nuclear proliferation. Following the treaty would entangle us in a war with Russia.
Another option might be to say that Ukraine can't invoke the treaty as their government needs to be elected first.
What is the treaty?
MJ, I just looked it up. It's called the Budapest Memorandom.
The rest of the Kerry interview with Stephanopoulos on "This Week, which AC just happened to cherry-pick the most ambivalent part from.
Kerry explores diplomatic options, sanctions, etc.
Cherry picking? Seriously?
Forbes.com says Russia is already having serious economic consequences from the invasion.
BTW I like DavidT8's suggestion in the original post, to put muscle into money-laundering investigations. This could have ramifications for US companies, too. Sounds like something Senator Warren would be our best hope for.