Weekend Open Thread

“No matter how much cats fight, there always seem to be plenty of kittens.”

–Abraham Lincoln

45 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. DavidThi808 says:

    The real reason you all read ColoradoPols…

    • Libertad says:

      Amendment 47 text from State website:

      Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado:

      SECTION 1. Article XVIII of the constitution of the state of Colorado is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION to read:

      Section 16. Right to work.

      (1) THIS AMENDMENT SHALL BE KNOWN AND MAY BE CITED AS THE “COLORADO RIGHT TO WORK AMENDMENT”.

      (2)(a) NO PERSON SHALL, AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT, BE REQUIRED TO:

      (I) BE A MEMBER OF A LABOR UNION; AND

      (II) PAY ANY DUES, FEES, ASSESSMENTS, OR OTHER CHARGES OF ANY KIND TO A LABOR UNION OR TO ANY CHARITY OR OTHER THIRD PARTY, IN LIEU OF SUCH PAYMENTS.

      (2)(b) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PREVENT ANY PERSON FROM VOLUNTARILY BELONGING OR VOLUNTARILY PROVIDING FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO A LABOR UNION.

      (3) ANY PERSON WHO DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY VIOLATES ANY PROVISION OF THIS SECTION COMMITS A MISDEMEANOR AND UPON CONVICTION THEREOF SHALL BE PUNISHED BY A FINE IN AN AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO THE MOST STRINGENT MISDEMEANOR CLASSIFICATION PROVIDED BY LAW.

      (4) THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO ALL UNION EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION AND SHALL APPLY TO ANY RENEWAL OR EXTENSION OF ANY EXISTING UNION CONTRACT.

      (5) AS USED IN THIS SECTION, “LABOR UNION” MEANS ANY ORGANIZATION OF ANY KIND, OR AGENCY OR EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATION COMMITTEE OR ORGANIZATION, THAT EXISTS FOR THE PURPOSE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, OF DEALING WITH EMPLOYERS CONCERNING WAGES, RATES OF PAY, HOURS OF WORK, OTHER CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, OR OTHER FORMS OF COMPENSATION; ANY ORGANIZATION THAT EXISTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR OF DEALING WITH EMPLOYERS CONCERNING GRIEVANCES; AND ANY ORGANIZATION PROVIDING OTHER MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION IN CONNECTION WITH EMPLOYMENT.

      SECTION 2. Effective date. This amendment shall take effect upon proclamation of the vote by the governor.

      • Danny the Red (hair) says:

        start your own diary so I can tell others why you are so wrong without wasting peoples time on every damn thread.

        • Libertad says:

          Your right to a secret ballot, just words; your right to choose, just words; the govenrors’ executive order that gave state workers the Right-to-Work, just words?

          No Danny, this is your freedom, your freedom to choose, your freedom to be educated, your freedom to pull the lever in this great democracy.

          YES on Amendment 47, real employee free choice for all Coloradans!

      • NEWSMAN says:

        Keep posting.  I enjoy being reminded this is a democratic (small d) republic, and we the people get to decide issues like this.

        The text lays bare the false claim of the Union purists.  

        Lib’s would like to convince us that somehow choice is good when it comes to terminating the life of a baby in the womb, but bad when it comes to allowing the voters to choose whether they may be forced to join or support a Union in order to get or hold a job.

        YES on 47

        • Libertad says:

          and lays bare the corrupt assertions the hyocrites promote.

          Here is another one to ponder. “Selling labor peace” it is external union corruption.

          I love how they corrupted the Chamber to PR the MAD quote. You have to hand it to the big union bosses, they actually got the Chamber to say the MAD quote they wanted printed after they went and got title to measures their own party leaders have said are anti-business, etc…

          This Chamber has to be the biggest group of SMF’s, no wonder businesses like Coors want to leave, the executive talent pool down at the Denver Chamber is full of idiots.

          It’s like being rear ended; hypnotized by the other guy that you liked it, but admitting it was your fault and your drunk; and then grinning your ass off as the cop shackles you in the cruisers backseat without a field sobriety test.

  2. DavidThi808 says:

    I don’t always agree with Senator Gordon but I really appreciate that he tells us what he’s thinking to a degree unmatched by any other politician in Colorado. In an email blast he sent today he said:

    One of the things we need in American politics right now is an electorate that can tell the difference between candidates who are pandering to them and candidates who act out of principle. The current standard is for candidates to take a poll and then tell the constituents what the poll tells them the middle of the bell-shaped curve wants to hear. This is the reverse of leadership. It lacks the one quality that is essential in a leader–courage. Unfortunately the American public seems to be unable to recognize a person of principle.  

    Once Andrew Romanoff and I were talking about this. The question was how to tell whether a candidate was pandering or whether they actually did believe the same thing that the majority did.  The test I came up with was this: if there is no issue that a candidate has an unpopular position on, then they are probably pandering. I am much more comfortable with a candidate who occasionally will stick up for something because it is right, even though unpopular, than someone who always takes the view of the majority. In fact that is a question that I would encourage you all to ask candidates.

    Ask them, “Is there an issue where you take a minority position, because as a matter of principle you feel that it is right?”[bold added] I think you will see a bunch of candidates squirm trying to answer that one.  As long as the electorate only supports candidates that agree with them on everything, we will see very few elected officials with a backbone–very few leaders. This pandering occurs because voters don’t recognize and punish it.

    On a totally unrelated note, if you go to Mark Udall’s list of upcoming events, there is a total of 1 – and Mark won’t be there.

  3. One Queer Dude says:

       I know, that didn’t sound right.

      Larry LoRocco is the Dem candidate for the U.S. Senate seat in Idaho.  He has the good fortune to be running against Jim Riesh, the Lt. Gov. (a RINO who was supposed to be appointed to the seat by the Guv when “Wide Stance” was planning to resign last year) and a right winger by the name of Rammell who is running as an independent Republican.

      If this works out, maybe the “Idaho Model” can work in Colo. CD 5 some day.  Imagine it’s ’10, the Dems nominate John Morse for Congress who can count on getting at least 40% of the vote, and Jeff Crank, fearing a third primary loss in a row to Doug Lamborn, decides to run against Morse and Lamborn as an independent Republican.

    • RedGreen says:

      Or U.S. Rep. Crank faces a challenge from the Christian Right when the scorned Lamborn tries to retake his seat as an independent. There are many possibilities …

      Sadly, though, it probably wouldn’t last more than a term.  

    • Dabee47 says:

      LaRocco has already faced Risch head to head before while running for Lt Gov 2 years ago and got obliterated by 19 points…  

      Could be interesting though..

      http://www.newwest.net/city/ar

    • Haners says:

      The votes haven’t been cast in that race, let alone counted.  What’s to become of your Idaho model once Risch crushes LoRocco again?

      If that’s your model (Dem gets crushed by Republican), I’m all for it  🙂

      • One Queer Dude says:

           Perhaps you’re right. Or wrong.  We’ll see how it goes.

          But it will be a hoot if come Oct., LaRocco is within 4 or 5% of Risch and the RSCC has to pull $$$ out of the Schaffer-Udall race to save Larry Craig’s seat!

          BTW, when LaRocco lost to Risch last time, was it a three-way race or one-on-one?

        • Haners says:

          Sure, he might peel away some votes, but I doubt it would be enough to make the race competitive.

          The Risch-LoRocco race was mostly a two man race, there was some minor third party player as well.  The 19 point spread between them is pretty substainal.  I have a hard time seeing anyone able to peel that much support away

  4. One Queer Dude says:

       I’m filling out my absentee ballot.  Only one contested race, and that’s a no-brainer (primary in HD 2 between Ferrandino and Johnson).  

      But there is this pesky ballot question (Initiated Ordinance 100) which would require that “a motor vehicle operated by an unlicensed driver be impounded” and not released unless the owner posts a $2,500 bond.

      In the abstract, it doesn’t sound like that bad of an idea.  (It would be better if they seized uninsured vehicles, but I digress…)

      The problem I have with this initiative is that I understand it’s being brought to us by xenophobic Tancredistas.  However, the initiative does not mention illegal immigrants, just illegal vehicle operators.

      Anyone care to comment.    

    • cologeek says:

      or a statewide question?  I haven’t heard of it, and if it were statewide it would have an impact on towing firms that impound for law enforcement agencies (the Colorado State Patrol does not have impound facilities so they rely on towing firms to secure vehicles).  If it’s local, then it would be however the local LEO handles impounding.

    • Aristotle says:

      and local critics said it applied lopsidedly against poor drivers who were less likely to be able to afford to pay fines that got their licenses suspended. (I haven’t seen this ordinance but I’d bet it applies to suspended licenses too.) I doubt they can afford a $2500 bond either. Here’s an article from 2002 about it.

      • cologeek says:

        that usually when the vehicle is impounded for lack of insurance or no license, we (the towing company) usually end up selling the car for parts or scrap, if it’s not retrieved by the owner after getting insurance or having a licensed driver show up to drive it away. The vehicle is generally not worth trying to sell to the public.  In other words, if the driver doesn’t even have a license, the car is probably a junker not worth the $2,500.  

        That is why I was asking if it was a local ordinance or a state one.  I hadn’t heard anything about it, and I am in a business that could be affected.

  5. dwyer says:

    I am hearing, second and third hand, that some Generation Xers are quite taken with political ads showing a much, much younger, handsome, captivating McCain….they want to know why he isn’t running…

    Anyone else picking this up, or is it just my crazy family…..where a sister is still waiting to be invited to her Republican caucus..

    • One Queer Dude says:

      …it was relatively well done, playing up his POW status.  What else could they have put on the air, considering what little his campaign staff has to work with (i.e., on foreign policy, he’s got unpopular positions; on economic policy, he knows nothing; and his reputation as a maverick has been moth-balled to appease the right wingers who don’t trust him).

      • Ralphie says:

        If you don’t listen too closely. “Don’t hope for a better life.”  Sheesh.

        (I assume you’re talking about the “Summer of Love” ad.)

        Been running here on the Western Slope (cheap market) to shore up his base for a couple of weeks.

        I don’t know where else they did buys, but a few sources that I Googled said “battleground states.”

        Not a big McCain fan, but I think it’s a more effective feel-good ad than Obama’s feel-good ad.  Which Real People know what a “community organizer” is?

        In fact, depending on how much air the McCain ad has had (and where) over the last couple of weeks, I think it’s likely that the ad has been worth a point or two in the shrinking of the national poll margins.

        I don’t think it’s simply Obama “buyer’s remorse.”  Portraying McCain as young instead of old is like selling “new, improved” soap flakes.  Disingenuous, but it works.

        • One Queer Dude says:

             And I caught his little digs at Obama.  There were a couple of them.

            “Portraying McCain as young instead of old”:  Of course the only pictures of young McCain are grainy black-and-white photos from the ’60s!

            He’ll only be able to wrap himself in the flag for so long during this campaign before he’ll have to explain: (a) the 100-year war policy, and (b) his plea of ignorance on all things relating to economics.

            Did you notice they toss Phil Gramm under the bus yesterday?  

          • Ralphie says:

            Except that you and I pay mote attention to stuff like that.  Real People?  They’re all about images.

            And yes, I blogged about Gramm.  Something about not only dropping a turd on Friday, but also dropping a turd on Friday after the East-coast dinnertime news was over (the story broke after 7:00 PM Eastern).

            And how it actually took away a bunch of anti-McCain ads from the Democratic 527s, which  was bad for Obama.  I wanted Gramm to hang in there until the bitter end.  He’s SO 20th century “gimmee” economics.

  6. DavidThi808 says:

    Paulson is saying the economic bad news will keep coming. The incumbent party does not win if the economy is tanking.

    We may see 60 Dem senators and another 40 or so reps. If people are worried enough, we might see Bidlack & Eng have a credible chance.

    Oh yes, this also means it’s all over for MM. When people are worried about keeping their job & house and putting food on the table, hearing “but you’re safe from gay marriage” just doesn’t cut it.

  7. One Queer Dude says:

       The Post is reporting that Dobson is now reconsidering his prior refusal to endorse John McCain.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


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