U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

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
August 14, 2010 09:52 PM UTC

Dan Maes, Donald Johnson, Tom Tancredo, and corporate interests

  • 98 Comments
  • by: bjwilson83

You may have noticed a new blogger on here recently by the name of Donald Johnson (no I’m not outing him, that’s his screen name). In reality, this is just a spillover from a long running debate on PPC and facebook. Apparently, now that the Republican establishment candidates have lost, he has decided to become a Democrat – he supports Hickenlooper over Maes. Let me bring you up to speed on the ongoing debate and inform you Dems about who you are accepting into your party.

Mr. Johnson represents business interests, as is clear from his blog. As such, he has been content to be an establishment Republican, enjoying their support of big business. There’s just one problem this year – the grassroots candidates won the Republican nomination this time. He has accepted Ken Buck reluctantly, meanwhile bashing him for being too “extreme” in hopes of forcing him into the establishment mold. The story gets more interesting when it comes to the governor’s race.

Although presumably a lifelong Republican, Donald has switched his support to Tom Tancredo, and even said he would vote for Hickenlooper over Maes in a two way race. Why would this be the case? This actually makes complete sense if you look at it from the point of view of corporate interests. Tom Tancredo voted for earmarks and the TARP bailouts, all good for big business at the expense of ordinary American taxpayers. Yet even if Tom weren’t in the race, he would not vote for the Republican candidate. In Johnson’s opinion, Hickenlooper’s business credentials are just enough to put him over the top of Maes, who would presumably represent the smaller mom and pop type business that are the lifeblood of the American economy and the real job creators in our nation.

So my question for you Dems is this: have you become the party of big business and corporate interests? We’ve certainly seen Obama, Bennet, and Hickenlooper all kowtow to these special interests, and it looks like some Republicans who represent the same interests are starting to agree with them now that the Republican Party has moved toward average Americans and away from special interests. On the flip side, it seems that many Romanoff democrats vehemently object to this new Democrat corporatism, and maybe some of them will switch parties as well. Is there a new realignment occurring in the parties with respect to corporate interests?

Tweet
Share

Comments

98 thoughts on “Dan Maes, Donald Johnson, Tom Tancredo, and corporate interests”

  1. business-friendly Democrat over an ideological whack job like Maes?  The business community gave core support to Ref C because it understood the importance of education, including higher education, and transportation in building a good business climate in this state.  I was a pro business moderate Republican for 33 years before switching last December.  With the Republican party now firmly in the grip of idiots who think bicycles are a UN conspiracy, I think you can expect a lot more to cross over.  

      1. Personal funds from political contributions just indicates a shocking indifference to the law.

        Hick has created a heckuva lot more jobs than Maes ever could.  And as far as BJ’s naivete in thinking all big businesses are run by Republicans, he might want to check out some of the largest tech companies like Microsoft, Oracle, Google etc.

          1. The world has never worked that way.

            But still you’re shocked and outraged when somebody like Donald Johnson refuses to toe the party line.

            This isn’t math. It’s much more complex.

              1. You changed the subject. I was just steering it back on track.

                But I’m touched by your concern for the Democratic Party.

                BTW, “it’s” is a contraction for “it is”. The possessive is spelled without the apostrophe.

          2. … ONE business-establishment Republican prefers Hick to Maes, so that means the Democratic party as a whole is now the party of the business establishment. Way to overread one data point, math genius. Oh, and actually, he supports Tancredo over Hick, so you really have zero data points. But don’t let an utter lack of any facts or data stop you; you never do

              1. … is devoted to bashing this one dude and saying the Dems are selling out to business if they let him vote for Hick. Even if you dress it up with “… uh, and there are other ways Dems are corp sellouts too,” it makes no logical sense to say one R supporting Hick means a flying F about the whole party.

  2. Mr. Johnson adheres to a crazy expectation that quality of character and integrity have a high importance in elections, maybe even trumping ideology in certain cases.  Tancredo may be a bit crazy from time to time, but he is an icon of personal integrity and ethics compared to Maes.  Hickenlooper may rub some Republicans the wrong way on certain issues, but he has served in his political offices without any scandals that I am aware of.  Dan Maes has been marred with enough scandals and gaffes to last an entire career.  If he can’t managed a $200k campaign budget without going afoul of the law on several occassions, how can we possibly expect him to manage a $18 billion budget.

    Without knowing Mr. Johnson, I would have to guess that he has his political priorities in order by understanding that apparent ideological agreement can not overcome repeated unethical and incompetent behavior.  He certainly can speak for himself, but I can think of plenty of justifiable reasons why a Republican would find themselves voting for Hickenlooper over Maes.

  3. .

    He was sitting and typing.  He sure didn’t strike me as a Tancredo supporter at that event.  

    There were maybe 25 folks from TV stations and other media outlets, and about 10 ordinary folk not affiliated with ACP.  The ordinary folk were there for other reasons, and not that demonstrative, one way or the other, about if they favored Tancredo.

    But all the media types seemed to hold some kind of grudge or contempt for Tom.  While Littwin was the most contemptuous, he was surrounded by folks that sympathized with him.

    .

  4. I’ve always been a Democrat. And for a very self-interested reason, I can make more money if the country has a strong infrastructure, a well educated populace, and people are paid good wages – so they can then go spend that money.

    I think you’re confusing people who just want to hang on to the money they have, who are almost all Republicans, with people who are creating wealth, who tend to be Democrats.

    1. There are many Republicans (usually establishment types) who just want to hang on to the money they have. But Democrats certainly don’t want to create wealth; they want to tax us all to death and use that money for the government to control everything. Lower taxes spur economic growth and job creation.

      1. is normal after a black out.

        Describe, if you can. the “establishment type” R’s who have clearly ruined your party.

        How about we zero taxes for awhile?

        Well- except for the Dept of Defense. And Medicare and Social Security. And the Veteran’s Administration.

        But corporate subsidies, ag subsidies and the arts and even public radio.  These last two save about 50Вў

        Here’s a math question for you.

        When was the last time the national debt was 100% of GDP?

        What happened to that ratio after 10 years ? 20?  

        What were the tax rates during those decades?

        Now, for the “letters” part  – name a major political power or country that has successfully debt financed war.  And be sure to define “success” during and after the war.

        Countries that debt finance wars experience negative economic impacts and rising debt. We started in 1965 – quit in 75, but had a hard time repaying that debt and so didn’t.  Until the 90’s when after years of Graham-Rudman-Hollings (proto PAYGO) and a D president with a an uncooperative R Congress, we finally started getting it together.

        Until 2000 – when tax cuts for the rich and debt financing two wars somehow became national priorities. Add in the major banking collapse and here we are.  And you want to cut taxes while preserving the ag subsidies and go on debt financing the war.

          1. This is what Buck was getting at when he said social security was horrible policy as currently executed. It needs to be reformed to ensure that it is sustainable in the long term and that it doesn’t contribute to a deficit. Also, we should accomplish very limited goals in Afghanistan and then get out to reduce defense spending.

            1. SS only went into negative current account status last year. For all time up until then it was current account positive, actually helping to mask larger deficits than existed in the general fund.

              And the trust fund has enough reserves currently to pay that current account shortfall until sometime around 2042, at which time the fund will be depleted and we will still be in a current account shortfall for the next ten to fifteen years.

              What this means is that a marginal increase in taxes today could keep the fund going indefinitely paying out at 100% of liabilities far past the 75 year actuarial horizon most legitimate economists would use.

              A great deal of the hype over social security outlays comes from economists on the right who like to use an infinite actuarial horizon which makes the current shortfall seem perpetual (which it isn’t) and much harder to manage. It works well for the politics of trying to destroy one of the bedrock foundations of income security in this country, but they should really be ashamed of themselves.

              1. So SS was positive until last year, and went into negative territory last year. Wasn’t there some big election recently…? Read the thread again though; I wasn’t the one who brought up social security as a major reason for our deficits.

                1. This is what Buck was getting at when he said social security was horrible policy as currently executed. It needs to be reformed to ensure that it is sustainable in the long term and that it doesn’t contribute to a deficit.

                  Sounds like you are joining Buck in tearing at Social Security to me.

                  And the election had nothing to do with the actuarial facts about the Social Security trust fund at all, but nice of you to try this weak segue though.

            2. This is what Buck was getting at when he said social security was horrible policy as currently executed. It needs to be reformed to ensure that it is sustainable in the long term and that it doesn’t contribute to a deficit.

              No:

              1)  Buck expressed doubt about SS’s constitutionality.

              2)  Buck called SS a horrible policy, not because it’s mathematically unsustainable now, but because, he said, the private sector rather than the gov should manage retirement.

              So you’re completely full of shit, as usual, when you try to post-hoc whitewash Buck’s loony-right attack on SS into “uh, he just wants it to be tweaked to it’s more mathematically sustainable.”

              1. You obviously didn’t pay attention to Buck’s further statements on the subject. You just look stupid when you attack me without having all the facts.

      2. I’ve had a hand in creating quite a bit if wealth. I’ve spent my life in start-ups except for my time at Microsoft. My whole professional life has been focused on creating wealth – and have been successful more often than not.

        So no I don’t want to tax anyone to death. I want the government to control as little as possible. But I also don’t want to live in Somalia, or even Colorado Springs.

        As to the impact of taxes, the one impact it has at my company is that come December we buy any computer hardware needed for upcoming projects. That’s it. Taxes can be 1% or 99% and I will still be focused on what grows the company.

          1. why? Wouldn’t he still be profitable? I mean profits are what’s left after everything else gets paid, right? So if his profits were a billion dollars, he’d still have ten million left after even 99% taxation. Why would that drive him out of business? And for the record, I wouldn’t mind making that ten mil…

            I think this is another tactic of the right- to conflate taxes on profits with taxes on income (or revenue). Nobody is arguing you pay taxes when you lose money, only when you make it.

                  2. that you can get so fixated on such an obvious rhetorical, completely not serious thing like what David said and misinterpret it in the fashion that you did? Do you have Asperger’s Syndrome? Serious question.

                    4. when you aren’t making a point.

                      But I AM serious. If it’s not Asperger’s, than why did you take Dave’s comments at face value?

                    11. Why did you take Dave’s comment at face value?

                      And why did you take this one at face value?

                      Why, beej?

                    12. I guess you’re right, I should stop taking everybody’s comments at face value. They’re all lying.

                    13. Because he wasn’t making a statement of fact, he was speaking rhetorically. That’s not lying.

                      I’m sorry to see that the chastened Beej has taken holiday. He was a much more welcome part of the Pols community than the old obnoxious beej was. Yet here is the old obnoxious kid himself, wet behind the ears but full of himself because his mama never told him that he wasn’t as bright as he thought he was. Too bad.

                    19. slangy insult context? I’m curious if you really thought Ari might suffer from mental/physical retardation or if you were just lashing out because you were ignorantly thinking you had been insulted?

                    23. I’m serious. You think I’m not, but I am. Basically, you’re calling me a liar. I’m not.

                      I’m honestly seeking an explanation as to why you take rhetorical statements literally. If you’re suffering from Asperger’s, it will explain a lot and totally change the way I relate to you on this blog.

                      Now, I know you’re too much of a child to apologize (Asperger’s or not, you should know better) but you can at least explain your problems with understanding rhetorical statements and questions.

                    24. I will treat you differently as well. You did admit that you don’t have the greatest mind.

                    25. I have evidence that you may be suffering from Asperger’s. What evidence do you have that I may be developmentally disabled?

                    26. Every single post. Like the one you just posted about disliking your sig line meaning I think it’s in context.

                    27. I ask serious questions, you respond childishly and offensively.

                      I’ll ask again – why do you routinely take rhetorical statements literally?

                    29. Let’s go to the tape.

                      Dave said to you…

                      Taxes can be 1% or 99% and I will still be focused on what grows the company.

                      And you responded…

                      If the government took 99% of your profit, I have a hard time believing you could stay in business.

                      There are many other instances which I won’t bother to research, but trust me – the next time you do this, I’ll be there to remind you of this little hiccup in your cognitive skills.

                    31. It means he’s not making a serious statement of fact. Jeez, the fact that it was so wildly exaggerated (1%? In your dreams. 99%? Even Bolsheviks would blanche at that idea.) is also a huge, flashing clue that it’s not serious.

                      So, now that that’s settled, why did you misread it?

                    32. and you have to try hard to spin it away, but really? You’re just making a fool of yourself.

                    33. This coming from the guy who fixated on the 99% but didn’t spare the 1% (to which Dave gave equal weight and meaning) a reply. THAT is spin, beej. I only deal in straightforward facts.

                      Beside Asperger’s, you should ask your doctor to recommend a good therapist. You have a problem with projection, which is what it’s called when you accuse someone of the faults that you possess, such as when you accuse anyone looking like a fool when you’ve been shown how you’re wrong.

                    34. My quote of you is every bit in context as yours of mine is. If you disagree, then we can both delete our sigs.

                      What do you say?

                    37. Disliking your sig line has no bearing on whether or not it is in context (which it isn’t). Guess it’s that not-so-great mind of yours at work again.

                    38. I gave you an option for acting on your disagreement, and you declined. There isn’t a reasonable person in the world who wouldn’t conclude that you must agree with me. (Of course, you’re not reasonable, or else you would be a liberal.)

                    40. My use of your words obviously bothers you more than yours of mine does. That figures – your words make you look silly, but my words don’t do that to me. Well, except maybe to an oft-humiliated extremist who is routinely shown up by me, but that’s just anger and shame clouding your judgment.

                    41. Like I said before, since when do you matter? Your words don’t make you look silly, just dumb.

                    42. Which is not only meaningless, but absurd given the way you go round and round with me. My only interpretation is that you know you’re beaten, but are trying to spin it around with some dismissive remark in an attempt to cover this up. Knowing this, I’ll take it as an admission of defeat.

                      Except that you just have to say one more thing, since having the last word is paramount with you. Too bad that your “last word” is answerable, so let me answer that.

                      How does my remark make me look dumb? I only see that it shows that I’m modest.

                    44. That would be “false modesty.” I really don’t have a great mind, just a very good one.

                    45. clear you have Beej on the ropes. He’s swinging wildly. ROFL It’s pathetic and wildly entertaining.

                      Ari – if you have a very good mind I shudder to think how poorly Beej’s mind works. Do you think he took the time to actually look up Asperger’s or just immediately became insulted?

                    46. As to your question, I think there’s enough awareness of Asperger’s these days that he’s probably heard of it. Hell, he’s a math guy, if he doesn’t have it himself then he probably knows a colleague who has it. So he was immediately insulted, although there’s nothing wrong with suffering from a disease over which no one has control. Although he seems to think so; check out his reflexive use of the word “retarded,” an out of date term for developmental disability. He was so offended by being called “blowjob,” but I guess insults are only bad if he’s on the receiving end.

                    47. BTW, I was never “chastened”. Like I said before, it’s only the arguments I get into with die hard libs that make me seem obnoxious. I guess people had left commenting on my posts to Steve and it took them a while to start up again.

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

97 readers online now

Newsletter

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