Author Archives: MADCO

For

I can use spellcheck.

I respect the written word.

I am perfectly willing to acknowledge and promote well written or even not poorly written diaries that I do not agree with ideologically.

I am not triguardian.

I am not a paid politico.

I have no dog in the Denver mayoral election.

I have been continuously registered and attentive since I could be, though not always the same party.

Against

I will not likely diary much in the next six months.

I have too many sock puppets.

I will likely continue to remind the world that H-Man and GOP warrior owe me $50.

My humor is not always funny. Or kind.

There’s that whole thing with Plutarch.

I don’t have enough sock puppets.

I am not a paid politico.

In CoPols-land I am neither a real D, a real Coloradan, nor a real person.

GOP Warrior has resurfaced, acknowledged his debt and retains his honor.

You, on the other hand…. ?

And when is appropriate?

As with many words in the English language, the dictionary definition is just the start.

Merriam Webster online

SHUN: to avoid deliberately and especially habitually

The Wikipedia gives a little more context

shunning:  the act of deliberately avoiding association with, and habitually keeping away from, an individual or group. It is a sanction against association, often associated with religious groups and other tightly knit organizations and communities.

ColoradoPols.com as a site is certainly a community.

And while  ColoradoPols the poster, moderator or community member created and enforces rules  of behavior that sometimes result in editing or banning, and a recent suspension, there appears not to be specific rules about when and if shunning may be appropriate.

There are posters and post types to which  I have avoided responding which is a kind of shunning,  But when it’s just one, the significance is typically trivial.

And while I’d be reluctant to adopt a “shunning policy”, I think as a community we get to choose how we want our community to be.

In schools, kids are taught inclusion. Exclusion, like shunning, can even be considered a form of bullying.

Here on CoPols.com, it would seem almost impossible for avoidance to be anything like bullying.  Sure, anyone can post almost anything.  But no one has to read it or respond.

But a discussion would be useful.

.. Buck said during Tuesday’s gubernatorial debate was the most bizarre thing yet.  He said he agreed with Clinton that abortion should be safe, legal and rare.  He said he supported the pro-choice position, but he was against people who were “pro-abortion”….people who promoted abortion….he neglected to name who these mythical people are because they don’t exist….

dwyer, coloradopols.com, Fri Oct 15, 2010

I demand a source.

This is an affront to common sense voters everywhere in Colorado and there is no way Buck said abortion should be safe legal and rare

No way.

“safe legal and rare” on google yields 14, 800 results – and none of them mention Buck except Dwyer, which doesn’t appear on the google yet.

“safe legal and rare” is exactly what I believe.

IN fact, as a pragmatist, I believe incremental legislation that makes abortion more rare is a good thing and do not understand when the so called “pro life” anti-abortion exrtremists are so all or nothing about it.  

To them it should be safe, illegal and nonexistent.   I would think that when legislation is proposed, or research or advanced medical procedure and technology, could make abortions less common, they do no support it.  It’s all or nothing in their view and incremental elimination is just useless.

I don’t understand that.

Incremental improvement should be welcomed and encouraged.  If the incremental improvement does not prevent the eventual goal of zero abortions, it should be encouraged.  Surely 50% opf last year’s number is better than whatever the number was last year. And 50% of that would be better the next year.

But I refuse to believe Buck,Mr.  I-still-support-personhood-in-concept-no-exception-for-rape-no-comment-on-62 Buck, would be so practical and fair as to acknowledge safe, legal and rare is a good way to think of the subject.

So Buck promised he would stay positive. He didn’t, but it always felt like an empty promise because of the presence of so much “outside’ money supporting his campaign and it was clear after how they treated Norton in the primary they would be as negative as could be.

And in recent  days it has been reported  that the  US Chamber of Commerce, which has foreign contributors, is spending on attack ads against Bennet.

Also recently reported is that American Crossroads, over 90% funded by four billionaires, will be spending big media dollars in Colorado to help Buck by attacking Bennet.

And also that American Crossroads affiliate, Crossroads GPS, is not required to reveal contributors or expenses.   Will they too be spending on behalf of Buck? Have they already? How much? Who funds Crossroads GPS?   We will only know if CGPS ever voluntarily decides to tell us.  (Though a complaint has been filed with the IRS that could void CGPS’s corporate status and if it is determined that they are a political organization, then they may be required to report.)

And in today’s snail mail come two large campaign mailers.  One, “Paid for by the Colorado Republican Committee,”  is multi colored with smiling pictures of the Buck family smiling, and a backdrop of mountains and trees, some green, some gold.  Attractive.   The text is friendly and inviting Join the Buck Family.

The other, funded by Crossroads GPS,  is all attacks on Bennet and Obama.   It says, truthfully, that Bennet voted for the stimulus and that Bennet voted for the 2010 budget and cites sources that are verifiable.

Then it beams off into lies and cites a partisan source with no facts – Grover Norquist and the Americans for Tax Reform, another 501 (c) 4 that does not have to reveal contributors or independent expenses.

The echo chamber is getting really loud. So Crossroads GPS is attacking Bennet (and presumably other D’s in other states)  for raising taxes, which is really the Bush tax cuts expiring. Tax cuts which contributed hugely to our debt, for which CGPS also attacks Bennet, based on ATP’s claims.

Why did the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010?  If they were so great and so affordable why didn’t Bush and the then R Congress  just enact them?

Pay attention class, I’m almost to the punch line.

To get the tax bills to pass and to maximize the size of the tax cuts, Republicans had to run the bill through the reconciliation to avoid a Senate filibuster. (OMG- but in 2009 R’s claimed reconciliation is evil!)  But this was a problem because “reconciliation” exists to decrease the deficit, not to increase it by lowering taxes “outside the budget window,”  10 years. So if the tax cuts expired in 10 years, CBO could score it as if it did not increase the deficit “outside the budget window.”  

Which brings me back to Buck.

In his colorful, upbeat smiling mailer, his only policy claim is that he will sponsor a balanced budget amendment.  No explanation for how he would get that work, let alone pass.  Will spending be cut dramatically? Which?  Will taxes be increased? How?

My 61+ year old neighbor opened his mailbox moments before I got to mine and his observation was that the only way to balance the budget now was to raise taxes or cut Social Security, Medicare or defense, or all three. He’s a U that leans R McCain voter but he’s voting for Bennet because he understands that Buck wants to take us back.   He wants the Bush tax cuts to continue, but the deficit and national security are bigger issues for him and he always felt it was wrong to cut taxes while fghting two wars without corresponding spending cuts.

So what we have here is failure to communicate honestly or transparently.  We have print and media (I don’t have tv) advertising that make all manner of claims, with hard to source data and even harder to source funding.  

Buck says whatever he thinks will help most with the audience of the moment, and when he has to buckpedal or even deny he said one thing to say something else, he just doesn’t care.  He’s relying on the natural tendency for voters faced with dissonant messages to magically forget the less preferable one.

And it’s not that he’s a practiced and increasingly polished political bull shit artist.   He was a trial lawyer first so I expect that.  It’s that we as voters have no idea who is funding his “outside” support or the “outside” attacks on Bennet. It’s a mystery, wrapped in a blank check from unknown sources, wrapped in lies and mistruths.  

The ads on Pols appear to be more plentiful and somewhat more colorful.  Aside from Allstate, Vonage, and other corporate giants, the ones that stand out most to me are the ones for out of state candidates like Angle and Paul.  Why advertise here?

But I also have been struck by the AARP click through add “Find out where the candidates stand.”  

I am not a member of AARP. But the limited experience I have with their political analysis is that they do not actually endorse, they explain various issues and current candidate positions and the impact to their membership on the key issues.

I clicked through and experimented with several addresses around the country to see what AARP had to say about the various candidates.

Here’s what they had to say about Bennet & Buck.

Social Security Solvency

Bennet: working to keep SS solvent, opposed to privatization

Buck:  SS is a promise to seniors, but eligibility age must increase

Me: No mention of Buck’s prior statements about his preference for privatization nor his questioning SS’s constitutionality.

Deficit Reduction and Social Security

Bennet: “An important component for guaranteeing the long-term viability of Social Security is to get our nation’s fiscal house in order, without raiding Social Security to do it. ”

Buck: nothing

Me:  Being serious about deficit reduction means understanding that SS, Medicare and defense spending are and will be the long poles in the tent.  Affirms for me that Buck wants to campaign on assumption and impression, not facts or clear policy expressions.

Access to Physicians for Medicare Beneficiaries

Bennet: “Medicare currently reimburses health care providers on the basis of the volume of care they provide rather than the value of care. For each test, scan or procedure conducted, Medicare provides a separate payment, rewarding more tests instead of better outcomes. Health reform moves our system toward paying for quality and value and reducing costs to Colorado’s seniors. ”

Buck: Nothing

Me: Because Tricare is related to Medicare, the Medicare improvements improve Tricare too.

…plan to help older workers get back to work and to improve economic security for people of all generations?

Bennet: “We closed the prescription drug donut hole, helping seniors afford the rising cost of prescription drugs. Moving forward, we must get credit flowing to Colorado’s small businesses, allowing entrepreneurs to hire new workers. And we must provide Coloradans re-entering the workforce with the training and skills they need to compete in the 21st century. In the long term, we must retool our economy to promote innovation and imagination. We must break our reliance on foreign oil and build a new energy economy that creates clean energy jobs. We absolutely must rein in rising debts that threaten our children’s choices. And we must do so while protecting and preserving critical programs like Social Security and Medicare that keep millions of older Americans out of poverty.”

Buck: “Candidate did not respond.”

Me: Bennet’s answers are too long to be good sound bites or simple one liners, though I agree that policy can be nuanced. And one-liners are often so overly simplistic as to be useless, but I question voters’ willingness to deal with the long answer.

OTOH, it appears that Buck would like to run his general election campaign with one loud if vague message: There’s an R after my name.

Anecdotal canvassing – I showed the AARP summary to some U neighbors this weekend.  The one who said he’s going to support Buck anyway (because of that R) said he didn’t think Buck or the rest of the teapartiers would be effective doing anything to SS. (His vote for Obama 08 was the first D prez vote since 1964)

Of course, so are  the 2010 CO R top of the line up.

Maes, Buck and Tancredo: This is the Colorado Republican 2010 all star team?  Really?

Maes is a delusional psychotic with narcissistic tendencies and reoccurring paranoia.  Tancredo is running to save the R party by destroying it.

So Buck cannot compete with these two in some ways.  But in others, he’s the clear champ.

Buck has changed more claimed positions since the primary than any candidate I’ve ever seen.  Until recently I thought he would at least to stick to tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts, and never raise taxes.  But we now know even that was only temporary.

I have no idea what the guy believes except that he should be a US Senator, he should not have been disciplined for blowing the prosecution’s case when he was an AUSA, and that he has real no shit, bullshit on his boots.

I was not a George W Bush fan. But at least he was who he was almost all the time.  Likewise, I was not a huge Bill Clinton fan. But he was who he was.

Obama is governing as he ran, a left leaning moderate.  Bennet is a running as who he is – his answers are too long, he has not even attempted the kolaraaduh accent, and his hair cuts and open collars are questionable.  But it’s 100% Bennet.

Who is Ken Buck?  What are his most firmly held policy positions?  

Does he really want to privatize Social Security? Medicare?  VA heath care?

Will he sponsor a Constitutional amendment to prohibit abortion?  

Will he sponsor a Constitutional amendment to impose term limits?

Does he really want to repeal the 17th Amendment?

Does he propose to fix the deficit by cutting spending or raising taxes or both?   Which spending? Which taxes?

Does he support a progressive income tax? a regressive consumption tax?  The FAIR tax?  The flat tax?  Elimination of all federal tax deductions?

Does he really want to eliminate federal guaranteed student loans? Or just go back to privatized gains and socialized losses?

Which part of health care reform does he want to repeal? The Medicare fix that added ten (10) years to Medicare’s actuarial solvency? The requirement to insure kids with pre-existing conditions? The insurance exchange?  Or is it just the fake but still alarming death panels and 16,500 new IRS agents?

Does he stlll agree with Tancredo that President Obama is the greatest risk to the USA?

Speaking of Tom Tancredo, he once advocated for the elimination of all publicly funded education (as has  John Andrews).  Does Buck agree?

Is there a single significant policy position, stated in the positive, (i.e, what Buck is for, not as something he’s against) that has not changed from the primary to the general election?  Bonus for finding one hat won’t change again after Nov 3.

Does he really believe we’ll believe it’s all nuance and gotcha politics and not just him pandering to whomever he thinks is in the room and whatever he thinks they want to hear?

Of course, it may be the most brilliant political strategery executed in recent memory.  Tell the camera man that the teapartiers are idiots who need to shut up, tell the teapartiers that they are right.    Everyone hears what they want to hear, and ignores the dissonant statements.  It’s even better than dog whistle politics in that it relies on the fact that when faced with conflicting information voters rely on emotion, allowing themselves to forget that their favorite R “conservative” raised taxes, or fought a war of foreign intervention and nation building.  

Either way, dishonest pandering or brilliant political tactic, Ken Buck’s 2010 campaign is offensive.

*I first posted this several days ago but it was threadjacked into oblivion and foolishness about something unrelated to Buck’s campaign strategy of relying on voters’ cognitive dissonance.

Emanuel will leave his White House job Friday, and aides say he plans a “listening tour” in Chicago while he considers a run for mayor. Sources say he has already decided he’ll be a candidate to succeed the city’s mayor for the past 21 years, Richard Daley.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/…

The Tribune makes mistakes once in awhile, notably they got that front page about President Dewey put to press a little early.  But they usually get it right about the Mayor.

So who cares?

Well, I’ve more complaining and spinning about POTUS Chief of Staff and his “Chicago style” in the past 21 months than I heard the previous….. well ever.

First, no one from Chicago would call anything we’ve seen “Chicago style.” I wish.  Not once did I hear about Senator McConnell’s car being frozen into a block of ice.  Never did I hear about the Park Police towing anyone. Nor did I hear about any DC office buildings going without garbage pick up.  

There is a Chicago way for politics- the Obama admiistration hasn’t been doing it.

I wish Mayor Emanuel well.  He should be getting to town just in time to really start campaigning, the early evenings and chilly winds off the Lake, and the Blackhawks to attempt the impossible.  Do I think he’ll be a good mayor?  Sure, the city that could hire a college kid to guard Park District garbage trucks over night from rats (issued a .38) needs a tough guy mayor with big brass ones.  The outgoing guy had them – I think the new guy will too.

Of course, so are  the 2010 CO R top of the line up.

Maes, Buck and Tancredo.: This is the Colorado Republican 2010 all star team?  Really?

¡Mein gött in himmel!

Maes is a delusional psychotic with narcissistic tendencies and reoccurring paranoia.  Tancredo is running to save the R party by destroying it.

So Buck cannot compete with these two in some ways.  But in others, he’s the clear champ.

Buck has changed more claimed positions since the primary than any candidate I’ve ever seen.  Until recently I thought he would at least to stick to tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts, and never raise taxes.  But we now know even that was only temporary.

I have no idea what the guy believes except that he should be a US Senator, he should not have been disciplined for blowing the prosecution’s case when he was an AUSA, and that he has real no shit, bullshit on his boots.

I was not a George W Bush fan. But at least he never waffled. He was who he was almost all the time.  Likewise, I was not a huge Bill Clinton fan. But he was who he was.

Obama is governing as he ran, a left leaning moderate.  Bennet is a running as who he is – his answers are too long, he has not even attempted the kolaraaduh accent, and his hair cuts and open collars are questionable.  But it’s 100% Bennet.

Who is Ken Buck?  What are his most firmly held policy positions?  Does he really want to privatize Social Security? Medicare?  VA heath care?

Will he sponsor a Constitutional amendment to prohibit abortion?  

Will he sponsor a Constitutional amendment to impose term limits?

Does he really want to repeal the 17th Amendment?

Does he propose to fix the deficit by cutting spending or raising taxes or both?  

Which spending? Which taxes?

Does he support a progressive income tax? a regressive consumption tax?  The FAIR tax?  The flat tax?  Elimination of all federal tax deductions?

Does he really want to eliminate federal guaranteed student loans? Or just go back to privatized gains and socialized losses?

Which part of health care reform does he want to repeal? The Medicare fix that added ten (10) years to Medicare’s actuarial solvency? The requirement to insure kids with pre-existing conditions? The insurance exchange?  Or is it just the death panels and 16,500 new IRS agents?

Does he stlll agree with Tancredo that President Obama is the greatest risk to the USA?

Speaking of Tom Tancredo, he once advocated for the elimination of all publicly funded education (as has  John Andrews).  Does Buck agree?

Is there a single significant policy position, stated in the positive, (i.e, what Buck is for, not as something he’s against) that has not changed from the primary to the general election?  Bonus for finding one hat won’t change again after Nov 3.

Does he really believe we’ll believe it’s all nuance and gotcha politics and not just him pandering to whomever he thinks is in the room and whatever he thinks they want to hear?

Of course, it may be the most brilliant political strategery executed in recent memory.  Tell the camera man that the teapartiers are idiots who need to shut up, tell the teapartiers that they are right.    Everyone hears what they want to hear, and ignores the dissonant statements.  It’s even better than dog whistle politics in that it relies on the fact that when faced with conflicting information voters rely on emotion, allowing themselves to forget that their favorite R “conservative” raised taxes, or fought a war of foreign intervention and nation building.  

Either way, dishonest pandering or brilliant political tactic, Ken Buck’s 2010 campaign is offensive.

 Loading ...

Gotta admit the sources here are left leaning commie rags clearly in the tank for Obama

Wall Street Journal  

Slump Over, Pain Persist

Secondary Sources: Recession End, Hard Times, Individualism

Bloomberg

Recovery Deniers Just Got Mugged by Reality: Caroline Baum

City Wire

NBER: U.S. recession ended June 2009

I could go on sourcing analyses and headlines from right leaning sources, but why bother?  Even neutral sources. Of course, the Times (Financail, NY & LA) are all over it. The WaPost, the Tribune (Chicago and International Herald) ,  and others are reporting it and chewing about what it means for jobs.  Employment recovery has always lagged GDP recovery, but sometimes shorter sometimes longer.

The point is that the Bush administration did the right thing by saving the banks and the financial system (AIG isn’t a bank). And the Obama administration did the right thing by providing the stimulus.  Bank failures have slowed down. Job losses have slowed down.  US GDP is a small and positive number.

It worked.  Keynes is alive, so to speak.

BUT

We are in election season.

The right cannot let go of the Obama-bad, policies ruined economy story. And the left while correct that it was Bush who tanked us,  is not prepared to talk about recovery, and to acknowledge that the imbalances in the US and global economic distribution are not a verfiable sign of end times.

The left should be screaming about how the R-gument  that we just can’t let the Bush tax cuts on the über rich expire in a recession has no merit now.  And how the left favors a progressive income tax and why.

And the right should focus on describing for us what the US tax code should look like:  FAIR tax, regressive consumption tax, flat tax (at 24%) with no deductions, budget unicorns or budget fairies, etc and so on. Or which meaningfull spending reductions they would advocate.  Sure you can eliminate the NEA and even the Department of Ed, but the long poles in the tent are Defense, Medicare, and Social Security. So start there.

While you are at it, Mr. Buck, explain how a balanced budget amendment would work in a 9/12 environment, i.e., how would Bush have funded the Iraq invasion and subsequent eight (8) years of operations and occupation.  A balanced budget?  Oh, yeah “accounting tricks” (lies) where we keep the war off the books.  

Or better to just look at the polls, and other numbers and conclude that the bs that has passed for campaigning till now in this cycle is working so just hold on to it for a few more days. (ballots in the mail soon, election day only 5 weeks away. So instead we’ll argue about gay rights and abortion and cutting taxes and false claims about what caused the recession and unicorns and fairies.

But the recession is over.

Perhaps he has been a good prosecutor. (Though certainly his performance and attention to his gov’t job the past 12 months has been negatively impacted by his campaigning.)

Perhaps he is a good husband and father. Maybe he gave a hungry family some elk meat.

But he has demonstrated that he is a lying liar.  

And even the Denver news paper that shall not be named has realized it and written about it today.

Recently, in response to another diary about Buck making some wacky claims to a veteran’s group, I wrote that either was lying or he’s stoopid. Or both.

I am not convinced about his relative intelligence, but I am convinced he is lying.

from Merriam Webster

1 to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive

2 to create a false or misleading impression

Buck not long ago: I support the Personhood Amendment

Buck now: What I meant to say was, no I don’t.

Buck not long ago: I will introduce a Constituional Amendment to ban abortion.

Buck now: Well, not really, though if I could support one I might.

Buck not long ago: I would never vote to confirm pro-choice judges.

Buck now: Uhhh, I have no litmus test. Really.

Buck not long ago: I think the FAIR tax is a good idea, and a consumption tax would be better than our income tax.

Buck now: Uh, well, I never said that.

Buck not long ago: We should repeal healthcare reform

Buck now: Well, except for the part about pre-existing conditions and kids. And that exchange thingy.  But we should definitely repeal the death panels and the armed IRS agents.

Buck not long ago: “I support all your issues” (to a CO vets group with a long and important list of specific positions on vets’ issues)

Buck now: ???

Does he support concurrent receipt?  (yeah, sure he does)

Does he support the new GI bill?  (uh-huh)

I could go on, but it’s your turn.

Buck not long ago:

Buck now

Buck not long ago:

Buck now

Buck not long ago:

Buck now

What would be awesome is if the CO R’s were executing the biggest, most complicated prank in the history of Colorado.  See we nominated Amaesin’ Dan Maes to be gov, and Mr. Opposite Man, Mr I Never Said What I Said, or if I DId I Meant Something Exactly The Opposite,.

But what we really meant was …. D’s Win!!

I would acknowledge the quality of such a prank.

But I feel confident predicting there’s nothing funny about it. Nothing at all.  

In fact, the biggest problem is not  that Buck said one thing not long ago, and said the exact opposite even more recently. Politically it’s not all that uncommon as a campaign strategy.

The biggest problem is that I left the key component of the then/now diagram out.

Buck not long ago:   Yes!

Buck now:  No!

Buck as a Senator:  ??

– reproductive rights: should be up to the government

– health care is a privilege not a right

– Dept of Education – buh-bye

– Burn more Coal!!!

– Solar and WInd? Pffft – drill, baby.

– AGW/CO2 emissions: it’s cold outside, no problem

– President – sure, let’s investigate and impeach over something made up

– Taxes: who needs ’em? Cut cut cut

– National Security: Safe, ’cause my son is manning up

– Federal Budget: Austerity Now!  A Great Depression  Was Good Enough for Our Grandparents, It’s Good Enough for You.