President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
70%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
April 24, 2009 03:28 PM UTC
73 Comments
The are two kinds of Americans, and two kinds of “un-Americans.” There are those Americans who embody the spirit of our Constitution, are committed to the humanistic and progressive values that it represents, and are called “un-American” by their opposites for not being small-minded and inhumane enough; and then there are those Americans who hunt “commies,” don’t like all this stuff about protecting the rights of “criminals” (ie, people presumed innocent, and often in fact innocent, who have been accused of a crime), and think tribalistically, who call their opposites “un-American” for being true to American values.
Someone will argue, correctly, that the Constitution doesn’t apply to foreigners on foreign soil, or to “enemy combatants.” To the first objection, as a matter of Constitutional law, that is true. But as a matter of what the Constitution embodies and represents, it’s spirit, it is completely false, and those who understand the meaning of the document recognize that. To the second objection, labelling people imprisoned as the result of a dubiously credible tip from a third party, far from a battle field and with no more evidence than someone’s word for it, an “enemy combatant,” violates the spirit of the Constitution in precisely the same way as presuming someone guilty upon first suspicion, and thus denying them their rights on the basis that rights belong only to the innocent.
Thank God we have a president again, after eight horrible years of moral and legal darkness that will cast one more profound pall of shame that this country will forever have to bear, who understands what it really means, or should mean, to be an “American.”
That may be true in a strict sense. However, it emphatically applies to the government of the United States. The Eighth Amendment restricts the Government from torturing anybody:
It says nothing about “citizens”. This is an unequivocal limit on government power.
and will, I believe, be interpreted to mean people everywhere are so protected from the power of the American government, whether they are U.S. citizens or not. Current Constitutional Law applies primarily to American citizens, secondarily (and to an almost equal extent) to anyone on American soil, and, for the most part, not at all to non-citizens on foreign soil. That tribalistic defect, like all such defects, will gradually erode before the force of the underlying meaning and relevance of the Constitution, as it was recently eroded a bit in the holding that American conduct on an American enclave nominally located on foreign soil does not exempt the American government from Constitutional restraints.
While I agree with your interpretation of the eight amendment, the Supreme Court does not yet, and it is not the eight amendment, but rather our domestic incorporation of international law, that legally prohibits the American government from engaging in torture. Currently, non-citizens on foreign soil are in no way protected from our government by our constitution.
point to the Bush administration having used torture for its traditional purpose. Folks like Rush are correct that torture works but wrong about what it works for. Less reliable than most other methods for acquiring the kind of intel that saves lives 24 style. Great for getting detainees to provide the torturers with the fabrications they need.
No proof that a person is a witch, that an unwanted queen committed treason and adultery, that there was an operational link between Saddam and Bin Laden? No problem. Bring in the torturers and get all the “confessions”, accusations and corroborations you need. Pretty clear that was what most of the “enhanced interrogation techniques” ordered by the Bushies were used for; to get backing for their phony excuses for the war in Iraq.
And waterboarding? It’s been just as illegal as murder, rape or robbing banks under U.S. military and criminal law for over a hundred years no matter what Bush administration lawyers wrote in their memos. It’s absurdly easy to look it up and find precedent after precedent, courts martial, criminal prosecutions galore for the crime of using simulated drowning on detainees. Illegality not even vaguely controversial.
Really don’t know how the Obama administration gets the toothpaste back in the tube on this stuff, no matter how much they might want to look ahead and wash their hands of the messy past. Something unstoppable may well already be in progress.
At any rate a lot of Bush officials, from the top down, probably would be wise to avoid taking the wife and kids on any European vacations. Especially Cheney and Rumsfeld.
.
By releasing all those memos that he must have known would cause the American people to demand an investigation,
and not one under the control of the perpetrators, like the storied “9/11 Commission,”
he had to know that he was boxing himself into a corner where he would have to relent and permit the investigation to go forward.
Crazy like a fox.
.
Relishing information to the public in order to box oneself in. But I don’t believe that’s what happened here. I think Obama held two, mutually conflicing commitments: 1) he wanted to avoid the divisiveness and distraction of prosecuting the crimes of the Bush administration, for both his and the nation’s sake, and 2) he wanted to live up to his promise of transparency and to repair our international (and domestic) (self-)image by “coming clean” as a nation. I’m sure he realized that the latter was going to make the former more difficult, but I am guessing (with a fairly small degree of confidence) that he decided that, on balance, he was better off doing the latter even at the risk of being forced into the former, than of doing neither and maintaining a discredited status quo.
Conversely, its possible that he has been disingenuous about his reluctance to investigate and prosecute members of the Bush administration, and that he used this release of information as part of an overall strategy. That’s certainly possible.
Sometimes I feel like Alan Shore, with his “word salad,” when I reread what I just posted!
that Obama knows two things? 1)How inevitable it is that, in this day and age, everything DOES eventually and not so eventually come out, like it or not. That was Gate’s take after all, not exactly a rabid GOP hating lefty. 2)It must be clear that any forthcoming action is not a lefty witch hunt which is what it would have looked like if he had pleased the left and come out like an avenger on this right out of the gate.
Of course his reluctance certainly is very much about this being an inconvenient distraction and political minefield at a time when all hell is breaking lose on so many fronts and his need to deal with the economic crisis and ambitions for accomplishing so many big projects is so intense. Even so, he most know that this isn’t something that can be successfully swept under the rug for good and that his base and many indies who supported him will continue to demand justice.
Isn’t it better if a groundswell of public demand builds to the point of clearly forcing the issue, while he, in the meantime, stays mainly above the fray and works on vital early term emergencies and legislative success? Isn’t it better to leave the ball in Holder’s and the DOJ’s court for now, as much as possible? Isn’t it better for him to bow to public pressure for full disclosure and thorough investigation with possible prosecution more in sorrow than in anger?
Thanks. Coming from you, I feel like I got an A on an essay for one of my old sociology courses.
Worst thing would be for this to become a short-term partisan issue at a time when the GOP seems pretty desperate, rather than a reckoning with a story in a much, much larger context. Further evidence that Obama has an uncanny ability to meld near-term and long-term strategies in ways not immediately obvious to all.
is the identification of the interaction of intended and unintended consequences, the controlable and the uncontrolable, and the challenge of anticipating the latter and incorporating it into intentional policy and strategy choices.
The thing I like least about BlueCat’s analysis is that I didn’t think of it first! 🙂
Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while, I guess.
Might there be, eventually, a consensus that the United States “lost” the “war” on Islamist fundamentalism/Terrorism–or, in a larger context, “lost” the empire–because we insisted on pussyfooting the Really Bad Guys? The impact of losing a war can be devastating–post WWI Germany, post-Vietnam USA to cite two examples–most especially for the Left. Might it be that Obama is concerned with managing this phenomenon in a way that minimizes that damage? Father Time will tell all, in due course. [Now is the time, in response to your original comment, for some crack about being in a pickle relish…but it’s not quite coming. Ever been to that island named after the Greek god Typos?]
But I think Obama is sincere in his commitment to raising the profile of diplomacy and lowering the profile of militancy, not for the political damage-management of a lost “war on terror” (which could never have been won as a “war,” given its diffuseness), but as a superior policy.
One of Obama’s masterful political innovations is to successfully rely more on straight-forwardness (obviously with some restraint) than on disingenuity, something very few politicians have been able to manage. The positions he announces and pursues are, to me, mind-bogglingly rational. Sure, he makes plenty of concessions to political reality, but on the margins rather than at the core.
So, while you may be right, it is not the bet I would make. I think Obama really is more focused on policy than on politics, and compromises to the latter as minimally as he can get away with.
I don’t disagree with you about Barack Obama in the least. I was just suggesting that the issue of a “truth commission,” legal prosecution, etc. is not single-faceted. Obama strikes me as very much the sort of guy who thinks about context–present and future–in addressing ticklish issues like this. When a society has had its fondest self-delusions so blatantly challenged as we have in the case of torture, it seems to me damned important that the leader “get it right” going forward. Whether his judgment proves right is TBD, but it sees to me that the question goes well beyond the immediate concerns of passing a specific piece of legislation in the second 100 days. I’m fully confident that Obama fully grasps the larger context and I’ willing to go with his judgment, even though I’m not thoroughly convinced this can be brushed under the legal rug and even though I’d nominate Dick Cheney to play the role of Can in tomorrow’s game of Kick the Can.
Or as one of my favorite recently active posters once said, “d’accord.”
An interesting discussion of Constitutional law. I had a similar discussion with a friend who teaches law for a living on the issue of whether government units have the right to authorize the adoption of infants whose mothers are undocumented immigrants about to be deported–as is now happening in several jurisdictions in this country. [These infants were born in the Good Ol’ USA, are therefore citizens, and cannot be deported–but neither they nor their mothers can prevent the deportation of the non-citizen mothers.]
He made a persuasive case that doing so was entirely within the bounds of the Constitution and immigration law as written. He did not make a case that doing so was in any way acceptable behavior. And we have seen clearly this very week that men currently teaching law or serving as federal appeals court judges made a “case” that if you just call torture “enhanced interrogation techniques,” it’s perfectly “legal.”
“Legal” is not a meaningful standard of acceptable behavior–at least not in our time and place. What should replace it as a standard is a core question that goes beyond the demonstrated limits of this particular blog, unfortunately.
the “legal analyses” defending torture were legal analyses in name only. They were political documents claiming to be legal analysis as a ploy to gain political cover and to permit illegal behavior. No legal scholar I have talked to considers those analyses to pass “the smell test.”
But there are other, more legitimate, legal analyses that arrive at and defend nearly as odious positions. Your more general point about the gap between “legal” and “moral,” I think, is correct.
But I disagree, if I interpret you correctly, with your assessment of the salience and importance of rule of law: For the purposes of political discourse and innovation, the law is really our primary interface with all other social institutions. Sure, we can affect ideologies, and norms, and markets, in a variety of ways, but it is our laws which create the legal context within which those other social institutional modalities operate, and so it is the law that we can use to facilitate them, and through them our collective welfare.
I think we share a mutual understanding of the role of law in our society in affecting modalities. I suppose we might part over the question of whether this is a good thing (as in, “Imperfect, but better than anything else up with which we can come.”) I might argue that the “law” is nothing more than a codified entrenchment of dominant economic interests, and thus has no more claim on our fealty than, say, the Running Dog Capitalist has on the surplus value of the output of workers whose wages are a form of slavery, albeit stripped of the bells and whistles that made it seem so obviously odious in days of yore. Democrats may be slightly less rabid than Republicans, overall, but within the larger context of the parliamentary legal system versus, say, Smash ‘n’ Grab, they are Running Dogs nevertheless. (God, are people still writing such verbiage these days? Who’d a thunk it? As I said, rather outside the confines of ColoradoPols.com.)
Yes, you are absolutely right that the law is “nothing more than” the legitimization of economic interests and power differentials. Order benefits no one more than it benefits those who are properous and politically powerful, and the political processes of creating it necessarily favor those who are most politically powerful. But that does not mean that it does not also incidentally favor those who are less powerful, particularly as it is elaborated over time.
The most primal example: a band of warriors conquers a scattering of subsistence farmers and both organizes them to create some surplus wealth, and forces them to give over that surplus wealth. It is not impossible (and, in fact, appears from the broad sweep of world history to be the eventual inevitability) that the surplus wealth thus created will increasingly be left in the hands of an ever-broadening class of subjects on which the sovereign relies and wants to motivate. Off-shoots of that civilization might even become prosperous capitalist democracies or democratic socialisms, with wide-spread wealth and opportunity, and social welfare nets for those who are left behind.
The first federalist example (national): The power differentials among the original states required that those differentials become codified in our constitition, but the differential benefits emanating from that codification have largely evaporated over time, and the states of the Union thrive as predominantly equal entities.
The second federalist example (global): The United Nations was clearly established for the benefit of the wealthiest and most powerful nations on Earth, who did not want to keep wasting their resources on the decentralized chaos that interfered with their ability to most effectively exploit the world’s resources for their own benefit. So, weak as it may be, they created the United Nations, but the United Nations also created a vehicle for the poorest nations on Earth to organize for their own interests, something they could not have accomplished in its absence due to their scarce resources.
The world is a complex and subtle web of nested and overlapping systems. Power differentials, and the injustices that they produce, are a very real, and, in many ways, unfortunate aspect of those systems. But the contextualization of the struggles among those interests, and their struggles to subdue of the less powerful, has many incidental benefits. The power differentials are a reality whether they are institutionalized or not. their institutionalization pacifies their operation, and creates numerous incidental benefits for people found at all locations throughout the “unified social field.”
Reducing the world to a simplistic morality play does little to deepen understanding of it, nor does it do much to increase human welfare. Understanding the complex and multi-layered social dynamics of that world, and working with those dynamics to try to increase prosperity, justice, and sustainability, without dismissing every effort to do so as being in some way, inevitably, a function of such things as power differentials (which simply is not a removable factor), is the real challenge.
So long as we seem to agree on your first graf, then certainly no argument from me on the need to work within the complex and subtle web to achieve benefits, even if they are only incidental. Ergo, Barack. Neither would I endorse reducing the world to a simplistic morality play, and I’ve decided not to put up my barricades this July. At the same time, I’m not sacrificing a dozen perfectly good barbecue wings on the altar of the God of Law. Even in practicable approaches to achieving progress, the question comes up with surprising regularity: is lobbying elective legislative or judicial change the best way to go? That said, no reason not to enjoy Mireille Mathieua apres le petit jeuner (http://www.marseillaise.org/audio/mireille_mathieu_-_la_marseillaise.mp3)
and think there are many ways to improve our social systemic environment without recourse to the law. But, both legislative and judicial processes are relying on, of course, the legal route: either making or interpreting our legal framework.
I am somewhat more dedicated to “the law,” for this reason: The alternative sucks. Of all the things that Americans crow about, and pat themselves on the back as having done better than anyone else, there is only one such accomplishment that really merits such exceptionalist pride: The degree to which we have succeeded in being a nation of laws rather than of “men” (sic). Obviously, it is largely smoke and mirrors, but it is smoke and mirrors that are remarkably useful, that pacify conflicts and channel them through non-violent avenues, that allow so many so quickly to resolve a dispute on the basis of what a 230 year old legal document says. It is America’s most enduring and impressive contribution to human history: A level of achievement of the ideal of rule of law far superior to any that had preceded it (though England had, of course, given us the foundation we needed).
I would much rather see wars fought in courts than on battle fields.
…the luxury of growing up in this society, in which the accepted way of changing social and economic structures was through argumentation (including that most persuasive of all arguments, “Pay to the order of…”) instead of at the end of an AK47 or nightstick (although the latter have been known to come out rather more often than one might prefer), of course I’m in no position to disagree with you. I can argue, but I can’t shoot worth shit…and who’s to say who will have more guns, the good guys or the Republicans from East Backwoods, Arkansas?
Sometimes I fret that the Constitution is misused to thwart the genuine “Will of the People” (which I understand and interpret perfectly, let me assure you) and the process of bringing government institutions into line with profound social and economic changes since 1789. The U.S. Senate increasingly strikes me as one example (and growing worse)…alongside such oldies as the Electoral College (did I just read that the EC gives 40% of the people 60% of the votes in the presidential election?).
On the other hand, when I persuade enough people that I’m right, at least the document includes the means to change it, so of course I come down on the side of “start arguing” rather than “start shooting.” (Although, Smash-n’-Grab sounds like it could be fun some afternoon, just so long as it isn’t my stuff being grabbed!)
It’s been amusing. Cheers.
There is a real tension involved, with pros and cons on both sides of every aspect. Feel free to email me, or contact me on Facebook, if you want to talk about it more (a conversation I will postpone until at least May 8). Cheers.
http://www.ap-gfkpoll.com/pdf/…
Most of the results show a small erosion in support for Obama and his policiies, but nothing terribly worrisome.
More interesting (to me) is that Congress’ approve/disapprove number have been steadily rising from 22/74 last October to 38/57 today.
And it appears that Republicans in congress have some work to do when it comes to the economy (relative to Democrats):
Approve/disapprove on the economy:
Republicans: 29/65 (and falling)
Democrats: 50/45 (and steady)
And in the “having your cake and eating it, too”: a slim majority agree that “Increasing government spending on education, health care
reform, and the development of alternative energy sources, even if that means the federal budget deficit will increase even more,” while a vast majority are worried that “increasing federal debt will harm the financial future of your children and grandchildren.” Go figgur.
I think we must do those things now and success there is key to fixing the economy. But I also worry about the levels of debt we are taking on. We face hard choices with negative trade-offs.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/w…
“…and they’re threatening to behead them, but you don’t know where they are.
…And there are a box of kittens that the person is about to drown; and a bus full of orphans the person is driving is headed off a cliff; and the sun is about to explode; and they have Michael Phelps, John Elway, and that kid with Downs who hit 12 threes down the stretch of that high school game tied up in a basement; and there’s a nuke about to go off at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Museum; and they’ve stolen the original copy of the Declaration of Independence and are holding a lighter up to it; and they’ve stolen the Colonel’s secret blend of herbs and spices.”
for illustrating how contrived these examples are. I was thinking about this one:
“you have a fox, a hen, and a bag of feed, and you can only take one of the three in your boat . . . ”
Now will you torture the fox?!?!
and they’re threatening to behead him. No, wait, bad example.
Hi all;
I just got a call from the Boulder City Manager’s office asking me to come interview her at 10:30 today. Since I assumed this was not going to happen, I’ve done no prep.
So any suggested questions?????
thanks – dave
.
STILL want to know.
.
1) Are you going to propose specific budget cuts to meet the revenue shortfalls you are experiencing?
2) Has your Council given you any direction on budget priorities or are they leaving that up to you?
3) How does your budget reflect the City’s Strategic Plan?
4) Does your Council want to be the only public face of Boulder or do they allow you to take a visible presence?
5) How has TABOR affected your planning and budgeting?
6) Is there any sense that Boulder residents would vote for additional taxes to support City services?
Just a few ideas.
seriously – thank you. Very good questions.
What are Boulder’s future needs?
What’s the most difficult part about implementing city council directives?
How can more business be attracted to Boulder?
Did you attend the 4/20 celebration?
How do you see Boulder’s population and demographics changing over the next 20 years.
Do you foresee “build-out”, either commercially or residentially? How do these factors inform your decision making?
What have you found different about managing Boulder compared with your last job, managing Dublin, OH?
What positive — or negative — changes have you seen take place in Boulder since the early ’80s when you were an assistant county attorney here?
Boulder is entirely car-dependent, “Hop,” “Skip,” and “Jump” notwithstanding. What are you doing to change this drastically in the next 48 months?
The Hill and the rest of Boulder are like two separate countries sharing the same corner of the planet. Can/should the city be more active in integrating the community of students and the community of rich-white-folks-who-went-to-college-but-who-don’t-like-drunken-kids?
And I used most of them in the interview (which I will write shortly).
I’m not going to do the editing step because it was a lot of work for the editor and there was no feedback on if the after was significantly better than the before.
Totally not politics (but it is Colorado in that my company is in Colorado).
We’re trying to find a better way to do the data selection part of our chart designer. If you use data or have any thoughts on how to select data – please take a look at this and post any suggestions there as comments.
thanks
I was going to post it on Craig’s List but thought I’d rather solicit bids from the Pols community, because the couch has some (slight) political history. Betty Boyd once sat on it.
So have at it, folks, and while you’re at it, I’m trying to find a decent transmission repair shop on the west side of the metro area — suggestions much appreciated!
…as long as it’s not terrible music videos 🙂
On another thread on this site, Republican 36 claimed the following: “The Governor’s internal polls have him with a two to one favorable rating and that hasn’t changed since January when it was 58% favorable and 28% unfavorable.”
Only two options here. (1) Republican 36 made this up, and he can leave this site in disgrace, or (2) some group is laundering in-kind contributions to Ritter.
Check Ritter’s campaign finance reports for the past couple quarters. There are no payments for polling! So who is doing the polling for him and illegally making the contribution??
Hopefully, we’ll get to the bottom of this.
It’s very disappointing that a former D.A. would stoop to breaking the law to win reelection. But then again, he laundered money through a nonprofit during his initial election, so I guess I’m not surprised.
is proof of illegal activity, because internal polling hasn’t been specifically indicated in campaign finance reports? Look hard, and I’ll bet you can find a category under which it would logically fit. Do you guys assertively strive to achieve, and take pride in achieving, such heights of irrationality and arbitrariness, or does it really come as naturally as you make it seem?
Maybe it’s time for conservative to just cut to the chase, and start shouting, “Look at us! We’re complete idiots, and damn proud of it!”
There’s nothing there that looks like polling. Miscoding stuff on your campaign finance reports is a violation as well. Polls cost a LOT of money. This is a big deal. If you have ANY evidence that the Ritter campaign paid for a poll in the past 6 months, then by all means, list the vendor and date.
Why don’t you call the Guv’s office and ask them?
Kid has a legitimate point. Republican 36 should explain his/her comments.
1) rumors that some staffers are using more toilet paper than necessary to wipe their asses.
2) volunteers not putting enough money into the coffee-pool.
3) a legislator was caught throwing out a tissue after blowing her nose into it rather than keeping it in case she had to blow her nose again within 48 hours.
You vigilant defenders of the public interest keep up the good work! Thanks to you, we have a hamstrung government and a fiscal crisis, but, hey, at least we’re keeping those bastards in line!
KK may have a point, but it’s not yet clear what it is. Indeed, Libertad has a point too!
Recall, as KK pointed out, it may be that Republican36 did not speak accurately OR it may be that internal polls were conducted and not obviously accounted for in campaign expense reporting OR that there is something nefarious taking place OR …
So, let’s let R36 respond before entertaining all the other possible “explanations.”
But to get back to the mission of this blog, shouldn’t we be discussing how we think Penry will distort and misrepresent all this? 😉
This is all Penry’s fault 🙂
Seriously, I agree that KK has a legit question that the gov needs to answer.
Last post was http://www.coloradopols.com/sh… wherein s/he lied or told the truth, thus exposing a potential problem.
Being Pub36 never lies and always tells the truth we must assume that the Kid’s points are dead on. Pub36 must be within the inner circle to have such access. I don’t know about these rules on polling and campaign finance, so I can only assume Kids on point.
When we see Republican36 return, we’ll have an indication of whats really going on.
That they have spent on “legal services” there is no where else it fits.
Or salaries…
Whatever happened to that Denver Post investigation?
Back when I worked for a senate campaign, I called people up and polled them between emptying trash cans and stuffing envelopes and sorting by zip code so the campaign could pay the lower rate. I realy doubt that my teeny hourly wage was broken out into “janitorial”, “preparing mailings” and “internal polling.”
I got this from Balloon Juice:
Now, Mr. L, why do you hate the father of our country?
Hi all;
The questions I got for Jane above were fantastic. So…
I’m interviewing Betsy Markey at 5:00 today. Any suggested questions, please post here.
thanks – dave
–Do you see any evidence –or are you looking? –that the downturn might be enough to refocus your rural constituents on fundamental issues and away from the infamous “social” issues such as “gay rights” (a big issue in Kiowa, no doubt, but surely not in the rest of your district!)
–Is there any point in running as a Democrat if you’re going to vote with the Republicans in order to maintain your seat? (Put another way: any plans to change parties formally?)
–What role do you think God is playing in global warming, as opposed to hog-wild burning of carbon energy sources? Do you agree that global warming is part of God’s Plan to wreck retribution on the left-wing queers who are taking over our heretofore Christian society, and that buying a 12-cylinder, 2 mpg vehicle is a good way to show we’re on HIS side?
–Why is it, do you think, that Democrats won’t come out and admit they’re all Muslims? Why won’t you admit it? Huh? Huh? Huh?
–Do you think something in the water supply can explain the mentality of your constituents east of Fort Collins?
[Nice going arranging these interviews and taking the time to conduct them and write the results. Seriously.]
Unfortunately I ran out of ink to write down questions 🙂
Water may ultimately prove to be a limit to development in CO, both in urban and rural areas.
There’s been a big water project proposed to pipe water from the Green River in Wyoming or Utah and bring it to the Front Range, and a similar scheme for the Yampa in NW Colorado. Do you support these out-of-basin diversions? Do you support building more dams to store the water?
Approximately 90% of water in CO goes to irrigation. Would you support financially supporting water conservation in ag use to free water for urban users?
On a related note: Many irrigation districts have rules that prohibit water transfers out of the district boundaries (I don’t know if this is true in NE CO). If so, would you support or oppose an easing of these rules?
Other Topics:
What do you suppose was the sentiment that persuaded voters to keep re-electing Marilyn Musgrave? How do you plan to win over those voters?
Do you support ethanol subsidies, especially in light of the fact that they offer no benefit wrt reducing CO2 in the atmosphere. Do you feel it’s appropriate to use food crops for fuel?
Gotta wonder how many motorists think they’re striking a blow for the environment by using ethanol. Your last question gets at both aspects of this issue…which isn’t even a debate, as far as I can tell. “Burn tomorrow’s petroleum today…use Ethanol! (And drive up food prices while you drive to the store!)” Damn good point(s).