CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
September 22, 2008 03:49 PM UTC
89 Comments
I haven’t written about the bailout because I am essentially speechless, for a variety of reasons. On one hand I’m stunned at the sheer size of what Paulson and Bush want. We’re talking about a sum that is greater than the yearly budgets for Defense, Education and Agriculture combined. And they want us to just hand it over, with no accountability and no oversight?
It strikes me as an absolutely shameless grab and another example of “disaster capitalism”, while the country is stunned by crisis maneuver to gain the maximum advantage not for the nation but for private industry. The sheer brazeness of it is shocking but it shouldn’t be at all surprising, this is what Republican’s do best – exploit national tragedy to shape public policy in a manner that affects the most possible good for their friends be they defense contractors or kings of high-finance.
The other angle of this story that I find so hard to believe (and yet I shouldn’t) is how the Democratic Party and Democratic leadership (if you can call it that) seem so totally and completely unprepared to respond and protect taxpayers from this robbery. Have no doubt, they are in the process of getting steamrolled, again, by a hyper-aggressive GOP. Oh sure they’ll make some noises about not writing a blank check and they may even get a relatively meaningless concession or two (lower pay for CEO’s anyone?) but when push comes to shove and Bush stomps his feet they will cave. I’ve spent a fair amount of time defending Nancy Pelosi for running a tight caucus but in times like these one can have no faith in her ability to put a stop to this freight train, out-maneuver the GOP and take a stand for the people who put her into power in the first place.
It’s like watching a train-wreck in slow motion, for about the 5th time in the last 8 years. We all know how it’s going to end, we’ve all seen this movie a few times before and there’s nothing any of us can do about it. It’s damned depressing that even though we have majorities in the House and Senate and a deeply unpopular president that Congressional Democrats cannot find their spines, cannot locate their value systems, cannot muster an iota of moral indignation and outrage and finally take a stand for the American people. Damned depressing.
http://steampoweredopinions.bl…
I’ll be calling my Congresswoman this morning and ask her to put the brakes on this bailout until and unless we get serious concessions from Bush and Wall Street. I suggest everyone here do the same.
so our leaders’ moral indignation is lost in the pool of prevarication.
This is like watching Saw VIII – the canned script is predictable but we can’t turn away for fear of missing the gory moment the trap springs shut.
Fortunately there is a chance that a Democratic Administration will manage the aftermath and any future crises.
But, all in all, yes, a damned depressing final act of an eight year play.
Privatize profits and socialize risk
Some in the media seem to be picking up on that fact.
on cable more than once yesterday. It’s short, sweet and about time.
The weirdest thing about this is that in real terms, the stock market isn’t doing that bad. Even on Monday, it was down a couple percent, then on Tuesday it was mostly back up.
It really seems that the “crisis” is just that some people might lose money on their stock portfolio. Who cares? Some of us have our money in nice safe credit unions, precisely to avoid those sorts of risky investments. If I knew I was always guaranteed not to lose money, why wouldn’t I put everything in the most volatile stocks? Can’t we reward people who were a little smarter about this stuff?
There seems to be quite a few now saying hold-on, lets do this right. And the fact that the market is doing well as they stop to look at it gives them breathing room.
Yes, as Steve says – call your reps. And it’s a great question for Udall/Schaffer in their next debate – which will get Udall focused on finding the answer that the voters in the middle want to hear.
since this links to the Cato Institute, which would seem to be anti-matter to you, but since you mentioned disaster capitalism, I had to put it out there. Swedish scholar (and former anarchist) Johan Norberg goes through the theory of distaster capitalism very well, refutting it point by point. I’d encouage you to read it, even if you still disagree with him at the end as I would imagine you will! I think it is at the least, an argument well reasoned, articulated, and sourced.
http://www.cato.org/pub_displa…
I read plenty of libertarian sources, thanks. CATO isn’t anti-matter. I fundamentally disagree with them on a host of issues (mostly economic) but in many ways I am sympathetic to their view-point (generally with social issues).
I’ve never read it, probably won’t read it. I wasn’t referencing her book specifically, I was referencing the concept of “disaster capitalism.”
DC certainly exists in our world, whether Klein’s book is accurate or not is neither here nor there. The point is certain aspects of capitalist societies have always viewed disasters as an opportunity to gouge the public and fatten their pockets. The problem is now we have an entire political party and a White House administration that are disaster capitalists.
someone says disaster capitalism and I immeadiately go to Klein’s book. However I think one of Norberg’s central arguments on DC is still worthy of thought — wouldn’t we expect large-scale changes to take place post-disaster? And how do you prove that capitalism doesn’t arise from a public desparetely in need of change (Argentina, China, and Russia in the late 80’s for example) vs. “Chicago boys” pushing a harmful ideology on the helpless?
Additionally, seeing as democratic/capitalist countries generally have the lowest incidence of famine, drought, better health-care, etc., wouldn’t it be reasonable to think that after a disaster (famine, drought, sickness) people and countries would seek to adopt the system that does a better job maintaining and containing said disasters?
And that’s just natural disasters, but political and economic disasters seem to be more problematic in non-democratic, less market-friendly countries (sub-saharan Africa, Iran, etc.) so that would seem to follow the same logic.
And I have yet to see proof that this White House (for all that I disagree with it) are “disaster capitalists” if that brank even actually exists.
Washington, DC – The Democratic National Committee today updated the Count the Lies counter after CNN called one of John McCain’s most frequent false attacks on tax cuts “misleading.’
As CNN notes, McCain’s campaign continues to repeat a long-debunked lie about Senator Obama’s voting record despite a clear record of opposing tax increases on the vast majority of American families.
This article is at least the 62nd fact check to debunk McCain campaign lies since he promised to run a respectful campaign in February.
http://www.democrats.org/CountTheLies
CNN, 9/21/08:
Somehow the GOP has always been able to portray us as tax raisers, even though Obama’s plan cuts taxes for 95% of people.
If McCain’s ads were saying “painful taxes…..for the rich.” they might not be as effective.
MSM is doing a somewhat responsible job of pointing these things out instead of just presenting the lies as another opinion as they did during the Kerry swift boating.
Just found this. Fun to play with the possibilities:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/p…
…any word on Governor Ritter offering the rescind his EO on union partnerships in exchange for the Post’s editorializing that he has finally come around to a proper position?
…any word on businesses, politicians and unions paying off the UFCW/Protect Colorado’s Future or A Better Colorado camps?
Salazar will announce the “Sole Source Business Club” gift to Fat Union Bosses of $4.5 million dollars to fight 47, 49, and 54 on behalf of the Unions.
Fat Union Bosses will in turn provide these corrupt sole source businesses with the pre-purchased media they bought. This frees up $4.5 million dollars for the Unions.
Using $4.5 million in forced union dues the Unions will dramatically increase funding to Democrats thus providing a 55%+ win of Colorado’s popular vote for the next President of the U.S. Barack Obama.
Further the Democrats will pick up 2 Colorado Senate seats, 3 Colorado House seats, 1 US Senate seat (Udall) and send Congressman Markey (CD-4) off to D.C.
Last, Bill Ritter will not have to oppose the radical union measures and may keep in place his EO that gave state workers the Right-to-Work.
Congratulations to the Democrats and Fat Union Bosses.
Sounds like a good use of money to me.
I was hoping Ewegen would weigh in.
Again, an outstanding political move by Democrat leadership. This could not have worked out any better and is frankly a model going forward.
Please tell you boss thank you – this could never have happened if he didn’t start the whole process. He joins Dick Wadhams in the “shoot yourself in the foot” club – Colorado Republican chapter.
gets to have Hick, Ritter and a few sole source business people stand in front of the camera and bash 47, 49, & 54. maybe they can use the 527 “Coloradans for Responsible Reform”.
Best for businesses, the Union measures get pulled and the businesses claim victory. I can hear them now … ‘we paid off the union terrorists’, look how good we are, its all for Colorado…
that is a goofy post. Off your meds again?
Come on. It is to the point & spell checked.
Do you have a factual problem with it? Is it being moved from Salazar’s office to the Chamber, Colorado Concerns HQ, the state capitol? If it was me I’d hold it at Perlmutter’s office – viewing distance of I.I.
Are you upset because the details are posted?
Bob, what does your newspaper think. I mean come on, the Hoffa comment in the editorial on the front page last year.
Your bosses must be really pissed off that the EO remains in place. Sorry the removal of the EO did not materialize for your bosses.
off your meds observation, Libertine, but it most certainly proves the point.
Stand up and look over towards Singleton’s area … is he hoping mad or resigned to letting Ritter off the hook.
with consenting gophers, libertine, and let the adults get on with business. Jonathan is getting annoyed with you.
Come on you fat bastard, channel lusty larry.
The only question I have is … will Union Udall show up?
10a state capitol
the kidz at http://www.fivethirtyeight.com are roadtripping through Colorado right now and doing a damn fine job covering the vagaries of the ground game for prez…
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com…
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com…
kicking their asses up and down the electoral map.
Fom the masters of the universe at 538
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
Makes sense given the demographic skew of cell only voters.
The Obama mix is there for the under 35 and highly educated crowds. All have cell phones.
The impact is on the entire electorate.
Cell onlys skew young (I’m 40 and have been cell only for more than 10 years and I am an outlier) which favors Obama.
That 2-3 points is the poling error on the total electorate for polls that do not call cell numbers.
I’ve had a cell since the late 80’s … it was $0.65/minute and the unit was $1500 if I recall right.
I think the cell phone factor skews under 35 +10pts the 36+ crowd more then 2.8 pts. Also more educated people and younger people will GOTV for Obama. Being their use of this technology is probably 95-99% I think this factor is much more then 2.8 pts. I’d say 5-10 pts.
An Obama call on my iPhone the other night, polling my leanings in the race.
I was so pissed (as I would have been if it had been an R calling my mobile during dinner) that I told then I was an African American Dem, but was going to vote for McCain over the abortion issue.
The poor guy on the other end of the phone was incredulous.
Ah, fun times in an election cycle. It was his penance for me putting up with everyone’s ads for the next six weeks.
Not really, just wanted to pester you a bit.
I’ll bet not too many. It’s the first time I’ve EVER been polled, and certainly the first time on my mobile by a campaign.
As someone who calls people for the campaign, we are well aware of which party voters belong to. It’s public information. It’s rather hard to lie about being a Democrat.
In any case, if you’re annoyed by a call and don’t want to be called again by the campaign, just say so. We’ll put you down as “Refused” and won’t call you again. The overwhelming majority of people say no such thing. Typically even McCain supporters are fairly polite.
I can’t speak for the call LB got, but in 2004 I got several. None of them were from the candidates, but instead were from polling firms. It was fun to try to figure out who was paying the bill.
And I told them they were mistaken about my party affiliation and that I was indeed a Dem.
So you’re correct in that.
Hey, kudos on two posts in row without a needless insult.
from the guy whose first response to me, ever, involved calling me “douche.” You haven’t the slightest idea what politeness is.
Cell phone numbers turn over fast. It’s probably someone else’s old number.
from the Boulder Daily Camera
they should give it back. It wasn’t theirs to take.
The DEA, local police, FBI.
Saw it on t-shirt, made me laugh.
Seroiusly, is pot really something we want to waste our time busting people on?
the money we waste in the courts and the penal system.
Denver got it right when we voted to make it the lowest priority for law enforcement.
…to securitized funds, IPO’s, and sucking on the taxpayer’s teat.
Yeah, go after the pot smokers but not the men and women destroying our economy.
It’s on. I’ll bet he wishes nobody was recording that blather to the folks in S.F.
But you sure are clinging to this quote.
Some people are able to forgive it, like Ray Schoenke. He’s president of the American Hunters and Shooters association.
Here he is talking in an ad that’s been playing on the radio here.
http://obama.3cdn.net/7e507fa1…
The NRA is trying to scare people into thinking that Obama is going to take away their guns, though he agrees with the Supreme Court that the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms.
I understand your anger, and the anger of others, over this quote. It was a stupid thing to say.
Feel all the indignation you want, but don’t try to accuse Obama of wanting to ban hunting rifles.
That’s enough for me.
The ASHA is a farce organization designed to appear to give anti-gun candidates endorsements from hunters. It’s a total joke.
is being against conceal carry banning guns? Your logic is bad on this LB.
I’m a member of both NRA and AHSA. I wish I did not have to join NRA to be a member of our local rod and gun club. I have no intention of counting my guns, but I love guns and usually buy 2-3 a year and have never sold one. Although I am not opposed to concealed carry as much as Obama is I do think that large urban areas have larger reasons to wish to have that ban.
I think the NRA does no good at preserving my right to own and bear arms. I don’t respect any prganization that believes that we should all be able to buy automatic weapons. I think the primary reason for the NRA to continue is to raise $ to support Wayne LaPierre.
that is think that conceal carry is a local issue, not a federal issue, and I’m sure that Sen. Obama would agree with me.
I am more along the lines with Gray on this one. Conceal carry is fine with me, if that’s what voters choose to make legal. I don’t think it contributes to any more violence than having a ban, and I firmly believe that responsible gun owners have a right to defend themselves.
But I reiterate my previous statement that a ban on conceal carry does not mean a ban on guns.
But missed it – sorry.
The NRA is the only organization that has the power to fight government over concealed-carry, and Obama has a whole host of anti-gun activity, but you are correct that they are unrelated in your post.
He’s pretty consistently taken the anti-gun stance when given the chance.
Look at what a violent disaster Chicago has been recently. I’m a huge proponent on CCW, and I believe it to be a great tool in fighting violent crime. Obama’s fought it in IL and I have no reason to believe that he wouldn’t fight it as President.
I’m also appreciative of the fact that Sen. Obama basically spotted the Republicans the entire NRA right off the bat by not realizing that he’d lose votes over not being able to nuance things like the “bitter” quote.
Here’s the NRA’s anti-Obama campaign. Like it or not, it is and will be very effective against him in a close election.
why would he, a respected constitutional scholar, not oppose the decision of the Supreme Court on the DC gun ban?
He opposed two of the judges that voted to overturn it, and said he would have opposed (in a really snotty way, actually) Thomas.
What qualifies him in your eyes as a Constitutional scholar? I’m curious.
at the University of Chicago, I believe.
It didn’t have squat to do with gun control – or abortion. It had to do with the fact that the conservative judges speak “strict interpretation” while actually being more activist than 99% of the liberal judges out there.
he is a high quality jurist.
Alito less so but qualified.
as to the other two on the ultra-conservative wing.
Scalia knows how to reason and stick the knife in, but his absolute devotion to a 17th century interpretation of the law is the same thing that incites islamic fundamentalist to look to the 8th century when interpeting the Koran.
Thomas single most unqualified jurist.
for writing the flag burning decision.
As to judicial activism, my theory is the constitution is a living document, but it doesn’t change every time the New York Times writes another really stupid editorial.
But I have also cited historian Page Smith many times documenting that, except for the Warren era, federal courts were consistently activist on the side of capital against labor.
with a hunting rifle.
http://indipol.wordpress.com/2…
i’m a devoted hunter and staunchly pro-gun, but also (I think) reasonable about keeping heavy weapons out of the hands of the citizenry. this issue in this election to me comes down not on gun control or gun rights but on access to and preservation of hunting and fishing lands and habitat. And for that there is only one choice: Obama-Biden.
The notion that an Obama Admin is going to “take away our guns” is utter paranoia. The rabid NRA uses this as wedge issue the same way CC’s use abortion: to stoke the base and get more money flowing to the PACs.
I’m an active part of the gun-owning community, I just wish we weren’t represented by such nutjobs.
Protecting the tradition of hunting, and the viability of good habitat, is very important, and a real eason Democrats are gaining ground in the Intermountain West as the GOP shows more and more it is in bed (literally it seems) with the oil and gas, mining, and other industries. Thanks for your work with Sportsmen 4 Obama, I know a few of the folks on the steering committee.
What kind of guns do you own, if you don’t mind me asking?
but not as heavy as the black powder pipe cannons we used to build as a kid.
(Unbelievable the things we used to do.)
If I had been a teenager in the 2000s and done the same stuff I did in the 70s, I’d be in jail.
Not if you live in Chicago or D.C.
are about a second away from sitting on the back porch in your rocking chairs talking about the good ol’ days. Next thing you know you’ll be comparing prices of things.
We did the same stuff, except we had computers and cell phones.
Just don’t think the Rs and the NRA are getting as much mileage out of the whole Dems want to take your guns away thing as they used to, especially here in the west where we have plenty of Dems who are very supportive of gun rights, especially in connection with hunting and sporting. As a wedge issue, it just ain’t what it used to be. But good try.
Self-protection has become an issue that people living in urban areas identify with.
…about how long it would take for somebody to say it was a racist ad.
What do you find racist about it? Please be specific.
i am writing this from my phone, forgive any typos.
In the 60s te black panthers fought for the ability to have guns. Their image made people uncomfortable.
The blond haired guy, the blond haired kid in the woods reminded me of a KKK rally. Racist on my part. I found the images uncomfortable. If i saw these people in that setting, they would make me nervous.
Just showed it to my brother, who is from Texas and he said te same thing.
See we all have bias.
What an honest and insightful answer to my question.
You made my day – thank you.
Today, the Post in an editorial came out against Amendment 48. In so doing, the Post announced that
That is crazy. Here is what the Court actually decided in Roe v. Wade
Here is the link: http://www.tourolaw.edu/Patch/…
The issue is not about abortion or even women’s rights. The issue is accurately describing a decision of the Supreme Court so as to protect the integrity of the United States Constitution.
But what the hell are they doing at the Post? Making stuff up? Nobody can google? The editorial board is looking for a safe place to land ? The board figures that no one gives a flying f##k about the Amendment? Nobody give a flying f##k about what the Post says???
Nothing in the last week has scared me until I read this crazy statement in the Post. If you cannot trust the Post to even get the facts on this straight, then how the hell can we trust anything they write? I disagree with a few of their editorial positions…although quite frankly, I never before questioned the veracity of what was stated.
I need a drink.
The post accurately summarized the trimester distinctions.
The Post manufactured the REASON for the distinction in the third trimester. That is the point. The Editorial Board of which you are a member let go with an editorial which had a false statement in it. I showed the documentation which proved the statement is false. And, since the very issue is the definition of personhood, the false statement takes on immense importance.
Your hostility does not change the fact that the Post printed a false statement. Your personal attack doesn’t change the fact that the Post printed a false statement.
Shame on you and shame on the gd Post.
As I said, you have had more than enough to drink already. Way more than enough.
Your ed mistated the conclusion of the United States Supreme Court in defining whether or not the unborn were “persons” in the context of the 14th Amendment. Your ed said that the court said they were, in the third trimester. I documented that the Supreme Court said no such damm thing.
I genuinely do not understand what you are doing. The Post made a very serious error in recounting the Court’s decision.
You are all over the place. The illusion to my “drinking” is spurious. Your hostility is unprovoked. You are not making any sense.
I didn’t object to the conclusion of the ed. I pointed out a very serious mistatement. This is not about me. I am not that important. This is about the credibility of the Post and its editorial board, of which you are a member. You can bully me all you want, it doesn’t change facts.
How is it bullying you to refute your rantings? And you are the one who mentioned your drinking. I only noted that it seems to explain some of your outbursts. So take one more snarl and have the last word.
.
Bigger than the idea that Senator Chris Dodd, D-Wall Street, is supposed to be a defender of the little guy.
Wait for it.
Ron Paul endorses Chuck Baldwin for Prez.
I know what you’re thinking:
didn’t he endorse Nader and McKinney last week ?
You’d be overthinking this if that’s what came to mind.
.
That would have catapulted you guys into the mainstream. If he ran, he would get votes.