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

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

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

52%↑

48%↓

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
June 11, 2009 06:29 PM UTC

New Front Page Guest Editor Elections Coming

  • 93 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

We’d like to thank our two front page guest editors for the first half of 2009, redstateblues and Laughing Boy for their work and insightful commentary. Hats off to both of them.

We will be holding an election for two new front-page editors next week. The new editors will start around July 1st, and barring anything unexpected will hold their position until the end of 2009–at which time we’ll hold another election. Representing a slight change from prior front page editor elections, we’ve decided to make this a nonpartisan affair: we’ll hold one poll of nominees, and the top two finishers from that poll will win the coveted front page editor spots. And naturally, the two current editors are automatically renominated unless they decline, in keeping with our general view on the deleterious effects of term limits.

As always do not be alarmed, your humble anonymous hosts will still be pulling the strings behind the curtain, carrying out all the plutocratic agendas we are so frequently accused of masterminding. Use this thread to nominate (and second) candidates for the position–you’re free to nominate yourself, of course, and we are not aware of any restrictions on campaign spending.

Comments

93 thoughts on “New Front Page Guest Editor Elections Coming

      1. But I do understand time constraints.  Why not just put a link to the junctiondailyblog in your link section, Pols?  And Twitty can continue his diaries.  Important information is generated by both.

      1. If nominated I will not run.  If elected I will not serve.

        I am having time issues with even getting diaries up of late…working to subvert the dominant paradigm takes lots of time, and I have to give priority to those who pay me to do it.

        But thanks again.

        1. but I hope you will consider it in the future. You’re a good, solid writer and I really appreciate your contributions here, Twitty.  

        1. I’m not sure Steve is as difficult to understand as is the need for doctorial work in understanding some of Hegel’s ideas.  Maybe a combination of James Joyce’s stream of consciousness and Edmund Husserl’s perception methods?  I do believe he’d make a good “guest editor”, though.

    1. …I would shape up this sinking ship, with bitch-slaps all’round (followed by margaritas and myself holding court).  I do have the perfect tiara-and-sceptre combination for the occasion….

      1. and hang around the site more frequently, I’d vote for you. But if it just inflates your ego, I’d say that’s a dangerous road to go down.

            1. …not to build glass houses.  Me, share my diaries with the world?  Never!  

              In truth, I thought about composing a Diary about the Obama Administration’s rousing defense/endorsement of DOMA in federal court (complete with reliance on INCEST precedents, etc). Apparently, some of the GAYS are up in arms about it (and not in a good way).  But I had nothing new to contribute.  See below for some details:

              http://www.americablog.com/

              http://andrewsullivan.theatlan

              Linking to Andrew Sullivan caused my skin to crawl a lil’bit.

    2. Change you can believe in.

      Change you can hang your hat on.

      And every other kind of change in sentences that end with prepositions!

      Go Jamba.

  1. for his service and a wag of the finger to whoever Mcpn (?) was who outed him.

    whether we agree or not, the ‘fights’ we have here on Pols makes for a better dialogue (and good time).

    now we and (i) aren’t able to get his opinion because of your decision to out his id.

    Look at how important even small amounts of protection have afforded Steve Balboni to hit on one of the bigger stories of the year.

    My only vote:

    Steve Balboni

    and thanks to Laughing Boy.

    you will be missed.

    1. It sucks that there aren’t any reasonable Republicans posting here anymore. That fact pretty much turns Pols “non-partisan” FP editor election into “two Democrats”.

      1. as much as he occasionally bugged the crap out of me, I miss Laughing Boy 🙁

        It was nice to have a GOP who could actually present a well thought out and reasoned argument…

      2. But there are people here that can make a case from the right.

        I know he’s not an R, but Barron makes very well-reasoned arguments from a constitutionalist perspective.

        And what about Muhammad Ali Hasan?  Hard to argue with anyone named after The Greatest.

        1. but I was thinking more of Karate Kid, Libertad (not a Republican, but he might as well be) and Mesa “Moderate”. Unlike them, LB was here to have an actual conversation.

    1. That way, we cover the Democrats and the Republicans. And since they’re both paid to blog, there will be no lack of content.

      Draft Kenney’s minions!

      Draft Tidwell’s over-enthusiastic staffer!

  2. ThillyWabbit, Steve Harvey, Middle of the Road.

    Oh, and GOPwarrior. Where is that little choad these days? I miss watching him get thumped–maybe giving him promoted diaries would encourage more such thumpings.

  3. but since he’s declined I’d offer Aristotle and RedGreen. I know RG turned it down last time, but you can’t avoid the calls of the people forever…

  4. We need a voice from the right and Libertad has shown that he/she is willing to write, comment, argue, rant, etc. And while Libertad will retreat to talking points a bit quicker than most, there are also numerous times he/she does speak on topic.

    Plus I think it would do us on the left good to get exposed to someone from the right who writes unapologeticly, blasting with both barrels.

    1. I nominate a pine cone. Libertad and the pine cone will be the greatest front page editors in the history of the blogosphere.

      Libertad/Pine cone ’12!

      1. although I appreciate the nomination from DavidThi808, I would not be able to commit the time needed to perform the function.

        To all of you crackhead crybabies that just can’t handle my posts, tough sh_t.  I will continue to monitor your misguided self-victimization and groupthink solutions right here on ColoradoPols.

        I nominate KarateKid.

    2. Being willing should not be a qualification. And there’s a difference between being “unapologetic, blasting with both barrels” and being loopy.

      I’m sorry if this site has lurched so far to the left that the only righties still posting are from the fringe, but that doesn’t mean we have to give them front page access. Plus, he can’t write! At least Karate Kid and some of the others can.

      Pols, please vet the list of nominees and do us a favor – don’t put anyone who can’t write on the ballot, even if they do get a nomination.

        1. Like a dog who keeps getting corrected but still digs up the garden.

          Needn’t limit the ballot, but I’m only going to consider voting for those who “can form rational thoughts” and “express themselves coherently.”

        2. there is no need to give someone a gold star for showing up. I think posters like Laughing Boy and Haners prove that there are conservatives that are well worthy of our respect and benefits, but I don’t believe there’s an A for effort award here.

            1. when the chickenshits won’t come to play? The Wadhams crowd has spent so much time whining about how left Pols is, that none of few to none of their acolytes will come to the sandbox watched by every political player and reporter in the state. It’s created a self-fulfilling prophecy.  

            2. between liberals and conservatives, but rather between analysis and ideology. Though the emphases and sources of legitimacy are different, there isn’t really that much difference between the underlying values of American liberals and conservatives: We all (for the most part) would prefer peace to war, but recognize that unilateral pacifism simply relinquishes the world to the most ruthless; we all (for the most part) recognize that markets are robust wealth-producers and should remain systemically integral to maintain a vibrant economy; we all (for the most part) value individual liberty, and believe that people should be free to say, think, and do what they wish, as long as they do not actively and effectively prevent others from doing the same; we all (for the most part) believe in extending equality of opportunity to all. There are differences, but they mostly boil down to differences of opinion about which means are most effective, which goals are reasonably attainable and which ones are too idealistic to survive a realistic cost-benefit analysis, how much and in what ways we should balance our commitment to our welfare in the present with our commitment to investing in the future, and how broadly and deeply can and should we identify with other human beings who do not belong to the same polity that we do.

              While I have downplayed the extent to which their our real and fundamental differences in values involved in the conservative-liberal divide, the more fundamental rift is between reason and irrationality, between analysis and blind ideology. There are highly reasonable and analytical people to be found in both Parties (who tend to respect one another, and to identify more with one another than with those in their own party who do not fit this description). And there are blindly ideological, rancorous, small-minded apes in both parties (who tend to respect only those other blindly ideological, rancorous, small-minded apes who think exactly like them, and only until they discover some difference of opinion which divides them).

              While I don’t always agree with conservatives like David Brooks and George Will, I consider them my allies in the real political battle, because they always strive to apply reason to evidence in service to smart and well-informed conclusions about how we should govern ourselves.

              And, frankly, I don’t feel any real need for any forum to strive for a balance between reason and blind ideology. I definitely, passionately, want reason to prevail.

              1. For the thoughtful there is still a wide gulf based on ideology, even if you are using logic.

                When does a fertilized egg become a person – that is fundamentally a moral opinion and have the gamut of starting points helps for a more complete discussion.

                Having someone who looks first to the market and to the government only as a last resort will find solutions that those who look to the government first will not find.

                Having someone who looks at the negatives of unions before the positives will consider improvements that those who are strong supporters of unions will never consider.

                The list goes on. But what’s key to this is to have people who come at our problems from very different directions. Plus this site will get boring if we all agree with each other (or just argue over small points).

                1. the reality remain unchanged, even once the definitions have been agreed upon (if such were ever to occur): Does the issue of abortion really need to revolve around a definition, or can it revolve around a deeper form of reasoning?

                  Is it necessary to “look first” to one or another social institution, or is it possible to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of each, and contemplate them all, without granting any some automatic priority?

                  Is it necessary to start with judgments (“the negatives” or “the positives” of unions, or of anything else), and seek solutions in their wake, or can the judgments be suspended as long as possible, so that the range of solutions considered is not artificially constrained from the outset?

                  Is it necessary that individuals come at our problems each from their own direction, so that collectively we come at them from many (without really individually assimilating or collectively articulating the variety thus provided), or can we each strive to come at our problems from many directions, so that the conversation starts with multiple points of interface, and the participants start with an openness to the multi-faceted analyses we are seeking?

                  Reason is not a fait accompli, such that the diversity of perspectives you describe can “come from reason,” because reason is the process by which they move: It is not the place from which they come, but the means by which they develop. To me, it is not particularly reasonable to start with any of the arbitrary preferences you named: It is only reasonable to start with none of them.

                  1. Lets drop down to elementary particle physics. At that level measuring something changes what occurs. So just looking at something changes what the facts are.

                    At the level of human interactions there is no such thing as just a set of dispassionate facts to work from. Is Russian Pop music great music? I don’t think there’s any facts by which we can answer that.

                    We should attempt to view things dispassionately and use rational discussion of the facts to reach the best solution. But using the Vulcan approach – not possible.

                    1. to suggest that there is some dispassionate point of view that transcends subjectivity. But there is no need to artifically limit the variety of angles from which we view that uncertain reality. Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle does not imply that you can not measure both a particle’s location and velocity to within a certain range of probability. Quantum mechanics does not eliminate the usefulness of triangulation. The fact that absolutes do not exist in any sense that is cognitively accessible does not mean that we must approach each issue with a fixed arbitrary assumption about that issue, and cannot strive to consider various points of view.

                      And aesthetic judgments about the quality of this or that art form is beside the point: That is indeed an example of something that is purely subjective. But it does not prove, and is not true, that everything is purely subjective. Unless, of course, I am (or you are) just dreaming (always a possibility), and all the rest is just a figment of your or my imagination….

                    2. Subjectivity is universal; irrationality is inevitable; passion is integral. Nothing I’ve said posits otherwise. No Vulcans here.

                      But these facts do not compel us to embrace arbitrary assumptions, or at least not to embrace them tightly. We are capable of thinking in multiple tracks, in considering various perspectives, in contemplating various contingencies, in considering different options without embuing one or the other with a pre-emptive preference.

                      I consider imaginative, rational, purposeful thought to be a very passionate endeavor, not at all a dispassionate one. There’s no need to confuse the very attainable goals of intellectual integrity, curiosity, openness to new evidence and better arguments, consideration of positions that one does not presently hold, and general employment of what is often called a “rational” approach to problems with a lack of passion, a lack of imagination, a lack of subjectivity, or any other such irrelevant nonsense. Passion and imagination are vital; subjectivity is just the statement of fact that we are embodied minds with particular histories, experiences, knowledge sets, and so on, rather than disembodied and synoptic beings who see all simultaneously.

                      I return to my first set of propositions: Is it necessary to assume that either markets or government must be given some a priori place of privilege in addressing human challenges, or can we, rather, strive to understand the social systemic dynamics in their entirety, and then apply that knowledge to the challenges we face? If I am told that I have to fix something in my house, I don’t assume that I will need a hammer, or a wrench, or a screw driver, until I consider what it is I am fixing and which tool (or combination of tools) is most applicable. This ability does not defy the constraints of quantum reality.

                      Similarly, the issue of abortion involves many considerations, about the purpose and significance of our moral constraints, about the applicability of those moral constraints in the context of their purpose and significance to a human being at various stages of embryonic development, about the rights of another individual upon whom this embryonic human being is symbiotically dependent for a certain period of time, about the consequences of one set of policies or another. The choice of how to label that embryonic human being at this or that stage of its development does not affect these realities, other than to affect how we compartmentalize them. But there are more fundamental questions than the particular compartmentalization we choose, and there is nothing that requires us to reduce all of those questions to mere extensions of how we choose to define our terms. Perhaps, in the end, the questions aren’t best addressed by such definitions.

                      The human mind is a supple tool, when we allow it to be. It makes no sense to insist that we always must reduce it to something less than what it is. I would prefer to see us strive in the opposite direction.

                    3. But I also think we need to take into account not only those questions not open to factual discussion (Russian Pop music). but the fact that we all, including you Steve, do have our blind spots, initial approaches, and misconceptions.

                    4. Privilege, no.

                      Let’s take me, for instance, since you brought it up: There are consistent threads in my thinking, in my “ideology,” if you will, which go back to my early childhood. But there is rapid change and growth, sometimes dramatic, that happens frequently in my life. I entered sociology due to a literary orientation, disinclined to value quantitative methodology in social science, and and wound up most attracted to mathematical modelling of social systems. I entered with an attachment to the Frankfurt School, which emphasized consciousness and the oppressive force of institutional rationalization, and wound up with an attachment to microeconomic theory and an emphasis on how to use institutional rationalization in service to human welfare. Years ago, I found the discipline of legal analysis an absurdity; today I find it a necessity. Years ago I considered capitalism a cancer on the Earth; today I consider markets perhaps our most organic of institutions, and a particularly robust tool.

                      Blind spots are not fixed, and their salience is highly dependent on the degree to which we accede to their influence. Certainly, the prevalence of human prejudices, assumptions, cognitive preferences, and misconceptions is part of the social field we are trying to understand and influence. Certainly, they are a part of each and every one of us. But they merit only recognition, not honor. Recognizing that they are prevalent does not mean that we must acknowledge them as the bases of knowledge, knowing that they are essentially false bases. Rather, it means we must consider how to best negotiate these obstacles to knowledge, and pursue understanding as vigorously as possible despite the difficulties posed by our limitations.

                      There are techniques for doing this, techniques such as mathematics, formal logic, and various methods of gathering and verifying empirical data (ranging from controlled experiments to statistical analyses to systematic gathering of qualitative data). In less formal discussions, these techniques can still be used by, for instance, being as precise as possible in identifying the assumptions, values, goals, and means implied in any given discussion; linking to data relied on; and laying out logical arguments whose merit is not merely subjective, but rather can be assessed according to a codified and recognized system of logical thought.

                      My point is not that we ever will be able to engage in these techniques flawlessly, nor that the defects common to human beings will not be ever-present elements in our thoughts and deeds, but rather that the commitment to striving toward the ideal of “intelligence” is preferable to an endless and meaningless ideological debate that makes no such effort.

                      Clearly, on this blog, and elsewhere in human discourse, one can readily discern both the ideal to some extent strived for, and the baser reflexes against which that ideal strives. This blend, in some balance or another, can be found in all human discourse, from academic debates (which are embued with more emphasis on logic and evidence, but carry plenty of prejudice and predisposition with them as well) to drunken arguments about whose preferred football team is better (which are embued with a greater weight of prejudice and predisposition, but are not completely devoid of logic and evidence).

                      The question is: Which model is more useful in determining the policies by which we live? Should we cling to the prejudices born of geography and culture and socialization and inclination, or should we strive for the insights yielded by systematic thought placed into robust competition? If the latter, it’s true, we will never achieve the ideal toward which we strive, because we will always be able to do better. But we can continue to strive for it, and continue to do better, and, as a result, govern ourselves ever-more wisely.

                      Or, we can just stand around beating our chests and pretending that that’s the best we can do.

                    5. ideological representativeness:

                      Ironically, it’s because the former insures less of an echo chamber, and more diversity of views, than the latter.

                      You want to promote Libertad to front-page editor in order to avoid an echo-chamber of left-leaning views, feeling that any robust representation of a conservative ideology contributes to that goal. And yet, you do not insist that we have an Islamic Fundamentalist promoted to front-page editor, or a Dependency (“Dependencia”) Theorist, or a true totalitarian, or someone, more generally, who takes the entire package of our American-saturated group-think and challenges it in fundamental ways. You accept a shared conceptual langauage, including, most importantly, the shared assumption that political reality is defined by a conservative-liberal ideological debate, and is best serve by further reifying that debate.

                      More focus on reason (and imagination) as being the ideal toward which debate should strive, rather than achieving a narrow ideological balance, helps to break free of that very limited and deeply entrenched conceptualization of political reality. Very often, the best answers aren’t found because the most useful questions aren’t being asked. You want to perpetuate the focus on the questions like “markets or government?” and “religious moralism or utilitarianism?” What that debate consistently misses is, for instance, the question of “what blend of markets and government?” and “what blend of religious moralism and utilitarianism?” plus “what else that has not yet been identified?” It defines the debate between “this” and “that” rather than defining the debate as between “what is” and “what could conceivably be.” The former is a consequence of defining political discourse as a debate between two well-established political ideologies, which define each other narrowly, and so become narrowly defined. It is a process of mutual constriction of dialogue, forcing each side to respond to the definition imposed by the other, rather than to respond to the possibilities identifiable independent of that mutually constrictive dynamic.

                      I certainly want more diversity of views here, and elsewhere, and do my best to provide perspectives that are rarely given voice. How often does anyone post here arguing that the conservative-liberal debate constricts political discourse? I don’t recall ever reading that here before. But whatever any of our representatives from the Left or the Right might post will be something we’ve read a thousand times before: It won’t broaden the dialogue, but rether insure that the dialogue remains channeled in the same-old dead-end rut.

                      The way to achieve a more open and vibrant discourse is for each to think as imaginatively and analytically as possible, to search for new ways of looking at old issues, to challenge old assumptions…, including the assumption that political debate must be forever entrenched between “the Left” and “the Right.” The way not to achieve a more open and vibrant discourse is to set it up as a debate between representatives of the Left and representatives of the Right, talking past each other, responding more to each other than to the challenges posed by the world around us.

            3. resembling logic, replies to cited facts by ignoring them to spew talking points.  Sorry Dave.  We all miss LB, Newsman and Haners but Libertad isn’t fit to lick their boots.  Barron is great but more of a unique independent voice than a rep of  today’s right or any other block.  Not our fault if the solid righties aren’t playing anymore.

  5. Logical versus Illogical

    Fact versus Fantasy

    Reality versus IllusionProper versus Improper

    Analytical versus Programmed

    Clear-sighted versus Blind

    Respectful versus Disrespectful

    Moderate versus Extremist

    In conclusion:

    Me versus You

    (From Hegel’s Vorwort und Aftfart, or was it Manny Kant. One of those guys.)

    1. were all so completely relative, being only that which each holds to be true, with none having any claim to greater strength than any other, then there would be no point to any of us posting, or expressing our thoughts to one another at all, for the reality of each is impervious to the persuasion of another.

      Science could not exist, because the accumulation of knowledge from experimentation would have nothing to recommend it, and the arbitrary beliefs unsupported by such evidence would be universally hailed as the equal of those scientific conclusions. Logic and evidence, after all, are purely subjective: Yours is as good as mine, no one’s truth has any claim to being more persuasive than anyone else’s, and sharpened sticks are as useful in warfare as assault rifles.

      But, in reality, sharpened sticks lose to assault rifles, knowledge is not completely arbitrary, logic is not just a subjective claim that people make to shore up whatever they happen to think (logical fallacies are identifiable, well-constructed arguments persuade those who seek to learn and grow), and ideology, in the sense of irrational assumptions that are unyielding to evidence and argumentation, isn’t the best we can do.

          1. in this case, I’d like to preserve the status quo. I appreciate the nearly-complete extent to which JO has been true to his word (a generous gesture which he was never obligated to make or honor), and regret the fact that we can’t carry on a dialogue. He made a valid point about how certain terms are generally used in highly subjective ways, and I responded that that does not mean that they are inherently subjective. A fair exchange, that ended without rancor. That’s good enough for me.

            1. …but if you want to preserve the status quo (however you brainiacs define it here!), you may want to refrain from responding to her/his messages, no?  🙂

              1. “re-established status quo.” I just don’t have it in me not to reply to an indirect response to something I posted, whether to point out why the response poses no challenge to my original position, or to refine my position if it does. Otherwise, I am left with the uncomfortable sensation of leaving a falsehood (or flawed statement) in place, whether it is my own or someone else’s. My aversion to letting muddied waters stand uncleared is, to a large extent, what drives me.

    1. Right now work is too hectic for me to take this on. I have days where I don’t even have a chance to read the blog.

      Also, I want to get elected during the upcoming 2010 election and no one likes a hog.

      thanks – dave

  6. …..I would like to personally submit the idea that Colorado Pols re-think its philosophy in making these front page editor elections non-partisan.

    Jokes aside, the environment here is very left-leaning. Not that this is a bad thing – we, as Republicans, tend to dominate talk-radio, whereas Democrats/Liberals find heavier presence on television and blogs.

    One reason I enjoy blogging here is because I do believe that ColoradoPols.com is the most active political website in Colorado and its success is mostly based on the fact that the user comments and opinions are highly empowered, allowing all Coloradans to engage in cyber-debates that were normally impossible – hats off to CP – it’s a great to find a website that puts the USERS first.

    With that said, while the website and its bloggers are clearly left-leaning, imo, I think it would be a mistake to not promote a Republican/Conservative editor, because I think we would miss out on Republican stories that show strength from our Party.

    I appeal to CP on the basis that this website does host lively debates and is seen as a great place to gather information and ‘buzz’ on happenings in Colorado – however, without a Right-leaning editor, I feel the website could quickly become a place that is full of Republican criticism, Democrat praise, leaving little room for any healthy debate.

    And lastly, don’t get me wrong – I am definitely NOT asking for any kind of censorship – however, I think two editors, one Democrat and one Republican, will strengthen this good website. And if not Democrat-Republican, then at least consider Liberal-Conservative, or something to create distinction between the two editors.

    Anyways, that’s my best appeal.

    Otherwise – I think RedStateBlues does an excellent job of facilitating healthy debate and informative dialogue – I would love to see him/her promoted again. Lastly, I always appreciate the postings of Libertad, DavidThi, and Barron X. I hope they’re given strong consideration and please consider those four names my submitted nominations.

    Peace and love all!

    1. Ali’s nomination of Libertad makes me question his sincerity asking for vigorous debate or any real interest in “Republican stories that show strength from our Party,” but he’s on to something.

      Just like grade school, we should have one boy editor and one girl editor (not in that order!). Then next year, how about some ethnic diversity among front-page editors, and maybe then an editor born before Watergate and an editor born afterwards.

      Peace and love all!

      — Crazy Ones Poem

    2. I’ve been wanting to post something for a bit, and I’ve spoken off-line to a couple of my friends that post here about it.

      Since I bailed on Pols, I’ve really enjoyed the fact that I haven’t once sat at the computer, ignoring my family around me while I angrily typed a post that would somehow save the world.

      I miss the dialogue very much.  Almost all of it here is fairly civil and elevated.  I’ve learned a ton, and I really, honestly am fond of so many of you folks.

      But enough lamenting the fact that there’s not a worthy right-winger to be an editor.

      I wanted to quote the biggest whopper ever told on Pols:

      Your anonymity is safe here as long as you don’t do something yourself to screw it up (as the case with the Kenney folks).

      There are about ten people in the world who know that I post as “Laughing Boy” on this site.  I met them at the meet-ups that I proposed in an effort to try to create some bonds between us that would help put faces with posts, and try to give some perspective on where people are coming from so it would make it harder to be awful to each other from behind the keyboard.

      Whoever outed me wasn’t one of these people.  Pols let the ridiculous comments sit for almost 24 hours, probably chuckling to themselves that ‘that anti-union guy’ got called a c%*t over and over by someone and was outed and now probably won’t post anymore.

      Well, good job, Pols.  You won.

      I don’t post anonymously so I can be cruel or hideous to people like a few here seem to pathologically do.  I did so because I have a couple of fairly visible jobs that could be negatively affected by my political views – which aren’t terribly extreme and certainly not hateful.  I think my point was proved by the outing and the manner in which it occurred.

      If I were to make a suggestion to the dead guvs, it would be this:  don’t bother with a right wing editor.  In fact, don’t bother with editors at all.  Anyone dumb enough to open the doors of the monkey cage and debate will eventually get bitten or crapped on.  Yes, it’s a far-left leaning blog, but big deal.  Own it.  Here’s my point:

      You don’t need to justify anything by pretending to have editors if you’re going to out them, or edit/de-promote their diaries after you’ve given them the power to do so.  What ideas are so threatening to you that you feel the need to do these things?  If something totally inappropriate was being posted, that’s one thing.  But don’t go through the motions and claim participatory editing when it’s really not.  I’ll be the first to admit and revel in the fact that this blog is private property and you can do whatever you want to do, but I find what’s happened to be disingenuous, with both RSB and I, and probably with past editors.

      I really would love to come back and wade in, and I may.  But I really needed to give my opinion on this one.  

      1. We make every effort to prevent incidents like the one you’re referring to, but unfortunately we are not always able to read every comment in real-time. The person who attempted to disclose your identity was well beyond our loosely-defined standards of conduct (more on that in a moment), and we deleted the comments and banned the account as soon as we were made aware of what had happened.

        We took no pleasure from seeing you subjected to juvenile name-calling and we find your speculation that we may have baseless and unhelpful.

        We have made edits to promoted blogs very sparingly, based on criteria we stand behind on a case-by-case basis: unsubstantiated rumors that could lead to legal issues, specific electioneering “magic words” we are required to avoid. In one case, the publication of details of John Edwards’ affair by the National Enquirer as posted by you, we were subsequently proven wrong on the facts and acknowledge our error. But you paint a picture of our blog as engaging in wanton censorship and manipulation of contributed opinion to suit our purposes and we reject that. In fact, we defy you find a state-based political blog more inclusive of differing opinions.

        We thank you for your contributions, which we have found well-reasoned even when we disagree, and hope they’ll continue. That’s your choice, though, not ours.

      2. I have missed you.  I must have slept through the flap where you got “outed” because I never saw the posts, but it is great to read a Laughing Boy post again.

      3. I hope you feel better having gotten that off your chest, but I agree with Pols – it’s a bit of a persecution complex to allege that they played any sort of part in it. Sometimes people can figure out who you are based on the details you reveal about yourself – anyone at South High who knows of a volunteer who is also a Republican and Ayn Rand fan who also reads this blog, for example, would know your real identity.

        We all want to see you come back. Having Libertad being the most prominent anti-Democrat (I really don’t know if he’s a ‘pub or not) here is a downer, for sure.

        1. quite vividly. Several of us in that thread were asking for that poster to be banned immediately and his comments deleted and it was nearly 24 hours before that occurred. In all fairness to Pols, they may not have been contacted by anyone by email, which probably would have gotten their attention much quicker than us bitching in a thread about it. And they did delete the comments and they did ban the user (I think.)

          But, this episode does point to somewhat of a problem–if there is no Admin available to deal with a problem of this magnitude in a timely fashion, then perhaps that is something for Pols to address as well.

          As to LB’s assertion that Pols deleted or demoted one of his diaries, I have no clue what that is about. I also think he is flat out mistaken that they were involved in his outing. I just think they weren’t around and didn’t get to the situation in a timely fashion.

          1. I think the overall problem that existed was a lack of communication between the Dead Guvs and us. I think that has been addressed privately, and I think that in the future they’ll be more forthright with what they expect out of front page editors when they’re elected.

            I have a different opinion about LB’s outing, and when certain people became aware of the situation. Thankfully, as you said, it was (eventually) deleted, but it was a steaming pile of bullshit and I cannot blame him for one second for leaving and not returning till now.

            For my part, I’ll be sticking around in a smaller capacity. I drive my wife nuts with my blogging, so it’ll probably be a benefit to my marriage to stop spending so much time here. I’m also done with school until August, and I need to be doing things that actually, you know, pay money. Also, there’s been way too much drama associated with this blog, and blog drama is just too much to deal with in addition to all the drama that is inherent in real life. I’ll still be chiming in now and then, but I probably won’t be writing any diaries–which is the main reason why I decided not to run for another term as front page editor.

            Like sands through the hour glass, so are the days of our COPols blogging lives.

            1. I do hope you’ll stick around here–you have such a good voice. I’d miss you if you weren’t here. I’m sorry to hear your comments about LB. I found it very odd that those comments stayed up for so long. I remember being one of several voices demanding they be deleted and wondering why the guy was still posting when he should have been banned. Without misquoting you, it feels like you are saying that folks knew about those comments but didn’t take action in a timely fashion. I don’t know why that is but I find that very disheartening.  

  7. Until we saw them, and immediately acted on them. We have no ability to be clearer about this, and frankly have always relied on our community being able to differentiate between our actions and those of our open-access community. We apologize if any delay in taking action worsened the situation, this was in no way intentional. We are very busy and not all of your hosts are directly tasked with policing the comments.

    The comments are gone and so is the user who posted them, all the rest of this is speculation about “motives” for our supposed “inaction.” If anything, we should find ourselves a little ‘disheartened’ by the presumption of bad faith dripping from this whole conversation.

    As it is, we’ve been doing this a long time now, and have confidence in our general, if imperfect, approach to managing a very permissive environment. We’ll continue to do our best to keep this an engaging and safe space for political debate, we invite everyone who wishes to email us at webmaster@coloradopols.com any time with suggestions for doing what we do better.

        1. Hatemail posts are hilarious.

          I have no idea what the LB controversy was about, but I think LB’s contention that administrative malice was involved to be a little rich. (Not to mention, “far left leaning” is an oxymoron, LB.) I once had a post deleted for some bullshit reason — I forget what it was about, actually — but at the end of the day, it is their site and they have editorial privilege.  

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

64 readers online now

Newsletter

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