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
November 01, 2010 12:11 AM UTC

Acknowledging the Integrity of our Opponents

  • 114 Comments
  • by: DavidThi808

From Jon Stewart’s closing statement at the Rally:

The country’s 24-hour, political pundit perpetual panic conflictinator did not cause our problems, but its existence makes solving them that much harder. The press can hold its magnifying glass up to our problems, bringing them into focus, illuminating issues heretofore unseen. Or they can use that magnifying glass to light ants on fire, and then perhaps host a week of shows on the dangerous, unexpected flaming ants epidemic. If we amplify everything, we hear nothing.

…

We hear every damned day about how fragile our country is, on the brink of catastrophe, torn by polarizing hate, and how it’s a shame that we can’t work together to get things done. The truth is, we do! We work together to get things done every damned day! The only place we don’t is here (in Washington) or on cable TV!

And from Jeff Jarvis (about the Rally):

Stewart was raising a standard for how our alleged leaders should respect us so we could respect them in return. “Because the image of Americans that is reflected back to us by our political and media process is false,” he said. Stewart was doing nothing less than resetting the relationship of the powerful to the public. He was re-empowering us. His speech and his event were profoundly democratic. Not Democratic or Democrat–democratic.

Media took most of his barbs and for good reason. I must confess that I came away feeling a bit ashamed to be a member of the media and journalism tribe (even as I played hooky from the Online News Association’s annual confab uptown). Stewart and Colbert rightfully castigated us. Oh, yes, they aimed mostly at cable news. “The country’s 24-hour political pundit perpetual panic conflictinator did not cause our problems but its existence makes solving them that much harder,” Stewart said.

But the rest of us in the news business are not blameless. We, too, monetize fright. We are evil coaches on grade school playgrounds, making sides and then pitting them against each other. When we in the press included TV and cable news people in our journalistic club and rejected bloggers and citizens, we legitimized them. When we don’t repudiate their ways, we excuse them. Shame on all of us.

I found the Rally very moving. More than anything else, in the spirit shown by the people there. People who came to state they are in favor of reasonableness and acknowledging each other as fellow human beings. Looking for what unites us rather than focusing on the differences we have. And then there was Jon Stewart’s closing statement which struck me as key to what we need to do. To work together on solutions, acknowledging disagreements but then working together.

He called out Congress and the 24 hour news networks for doubling down on disagreement, being part of the problem rather than part of the solution. And that is true, but we in the political blogosphere are equally at fault. Our impact may be less, but our efforts all too often are identical – to make disagreements gigantic and ignore agreements. To focus on conflicts rather than solutions.

It’s easy to point at the other side and tell them what they should do different. What’s difficult is to speak about where we, our side, have focused on differences for partisan advantage rather than looking to where we can work together to address the problems we face. In all too many cases we look for the parts where we differ so we can fight, rather than the parts where we agree.

So here goes my paying penance:

I’ve possibly spent more time interviewing Republicans in this state than any other liberal blogger. And without exception I have found them to be people who sincerely want to do what is best for our state. And who approach the issues they see in front of us thoughtfully. They are each imperfect. They make mistakes. They have blind spots. But that just means they’re human beings – like the rest of us.

Ken Buck has been honest about his views on abortion when the politically opportunistic thing for him to do would have been a much softer stance. The question of when life becomes human is a fundamental philosophical question where there is no way to prove what the correct answer is. So we each must find our own answer. And he has been pilloried for being “anti-woman” when this is a question that disproportionately impacts women, but that does not make it anti-woman. Saying women should not have jobs or should submit to their husbands – that is anti-woman. But we all agree that once you have a child, that imposes dramatic restrictions on your life as a parent.

Tom Tancredo has focused most of his attention on illegal immigration. And immigration politics has always been tightly tied to racism. But at the same time very few people propose that we open the borders to allow anyone to come in at any time. To quote Jon Stewart “Not being able to distinguish between real racists and Tea Party-ers, or real bigots and Juan Williams or Rick Sanchez is an insult–not only to those people, but to the racists themselves, who have put in the exhausting effort it takes to hate.” Tom Tancredo has by and large focused on the economic impact of illegal immigration.

I’ve talked to a number of Republican legislators (special props to Senators Penry & Brophy) and they are all focused on what is best for the state of Colorado. They believe that the state government needs to address waste & inefficiency. Any honest answer to that should be that yes, like every organization, waste & inefficiency exists in our government. To claim otherwise strains credibility. Their first reaction to any issue is to ask if the private sector can address it. But shouldn’t we want some to be looking in that direction?

And in all this, what we all want tends to be the same thing. Listening to a Republican listing out the basic problems we face is very close to listening to a Democrat. I may (mostly) disagree with their solutions, but I respect their intentions and their efforts. And I acknowledge that there may be times where they are right and I am wrong.

Fundamentally we are not Democrats & Republicans, fundamentally we are Americans. And that means that when we look to address problems, when we vote, when we speak and write, in all those cases we should do what is best for America, not what is best for party or self. Exaggerating our differences for partisan advantage is harming our political discourse and contributing to our gridlock.

I leave this with a final quote from Jon Stewart:

Most Americans don’t live their lives solely as Democrats, Republicans, liberals or conservatives. Americans live their lives more as people that are just a little bit late for something they have to do. Often something they do not want to do! But they do it. Impossible things, every day, that are only made possible through the little, reasonable compromises we all make.

…

Because we know, instinctively, as a people, that if we are to get through the darkness and back into the light, we have to work together. And the truth is there will always be darkness, and sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel isn’t the promised land.

Tweet
Share

Comments

114 thoughts on “Acknowledging the Integrity of our Opponents”

  1. David, your frustration at the extreme polarization is apt. And it’s certainly true that many of the Republicans you’ve interviewed are affable, love their children, and can persuade a purportedly liberal blogger that they want the same things as everyone else.

    But to take just one example from your Rodney Kng-style plea: The alternative to Tom Tancredo’s brand of radical nativism isn’t to “propose that we open the borders to allow anyone to come in at any time,” and it never has been. You’re making a case that even Tancredo, on his signature issue, isn’t on the radical fringe, but he is, and it’s disingenuous to pretend otherwise. He was so far out of the mainstream on this topic that his own party tried to marginalize him and the Bush White House didn’t want to be seen with him.

    I will agree with you on one thing. It poisons the public sphere to demonize opponents, rather than forcefully disagree with fundamental differences. There was, to my mind, an uncomfortable level of that in the Solano thread yesterday. Tempers run high on the eve of an election, and the right has done nothing if not stoked tempers the last year and a half. That’s a difference no one has to exaggerate.

    1. What I meant was that discussions of stopping illegal immigration by itself many times bring in accusation of racism, yet most everyone does want to restrict it to some degree.

      As to being distanced by the Republicans, it’s because Bush, to his great credit, wanted to include amnesty and Tancredo opposes that. But there is a substantial chunk of the Republican party that does agree with Tancredo.

      And thank you for your 3rd paragraph.

      1. to some degree. Stating that gets us nowhere. And using Tom Tancredo as your example of somone who’s unfairly portrayed as an extremist — on a topic even he will acknowledge he’s on the extreme — just underlines the point you’re attempting to refute.

        Of course everyone will say they’re for full employment, Fourth of July picnics and the right to watch American Idol. But the devil isn’t just in the details, it’s in the broad strokes, and there the parties diverge across the board.

        How about this example: Ken Buck wants to criminalize a common medical procedure the Supreme Court has said is based on a fundamental right in the Constitution. Even among the general anti-choice crowd, his rejection of exceptions for victims of rape and incest counts as extreme. How on earth is pointing this out exaggerating anything or emphasizing differences at the expense of everyone getting along? That’s absurd, David.

        Throw in his earlier, apparently lazy, endorsement of a ballot measure that would ban common forms of birth control, and you’ve got a defining difference between Buck and the Democrats. The Bennet campaign and other groups are betting this is a fundamental deal-breaker for lots of women. If it is, whether or not Buck is a cartoon extremist in other senses when it comes to women (“submit tot heir husband”) is beside the point.

        1. The point wasn’t that Buck isn’t extreme.  The question was whether it is fair to say that Buck hates women (in absence of other evidence).  The issue is that when someone votes for unemployment extensions they are called a Commie and if someone suggests decreasing a penny of education money the response is to say they must hate our children.  Small wonder voters don’t know which ads to believe when so many are devoid of facts and full of vitriol.

          Not that I mind a good vitriolic debate every so often, but isn’t it good enough to just use examples of extreme things Buck actually believes (just an example of course) without then harming your own credibility by jumping the line between fact and speculation?    

    2. I will add that the words these candidates speak to David need to match up to actions that are equally positive and are clearly in the best interests of the non-wealthy and the nation as a whole. So far, none meet my criteria.  

      I’m old enough to remember reasonable, ethical, caring Republicans in office.  There are none of those currently in office, or running for office, at the state or Federal level, as far as I can see.

      The leadership of the Rep. Party has clearly stated its agenda:  to take down the president. I find nothing there to respect or count on to make this country stronger and better.

      And this is simply not true:

      Tom Tancredo has by and large focused on the economic impact of illegal immigration.

      And when he does focus on it, he lies.

  2. I’m sorry, that’s complete bullshit. He enbraced the extreme “Personhood Amendment” when he needed conservatives in the primary to defeat the perceived-as-moderate  Norton. Then once in the general he walked away from the Personhood Amdt. In short, Buck’s abortion shift has been one of the best examples of being “politically opportunistic” I can think of in recent political history. I do like your interviews, David, but you get too easily taken in by a charming politician trying to sell you a bill of good about his good faith, his brave stances, etc.  

  3. But when the opposition decimates the middle calss and takes food, the environment, health care, jobs and the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness away….its fucking warfare.

    I’m sorry that I can’t separate the fact that there is ENORMOUS financial disparity in this country from the fact that the Republican party (I’ll freely admit the Democrats are complicit) does not work for the benefit of families here in America.

    All the hot button issues like abortion and guns….just distractions from the transfer of wealth to an elite few.

    Oligarchy is not just a word. History does repeat itself. The margins for error are getting slimmer.

    I’ve always respected your views. However, you risk becoming the Neville Chamberlain of Copols.

      1. Dave is a lot more like a  Republican than he thinks he is. Leaving Hitler out of it, of course.

        That said, being like Neville Chamberlain doesn’t require any one else being like Hitler. I read it more as a reference to the folly of appeasement as demonstrated by, say, the Obama administration’s tireless attempts to get the Rs to play nice when they have absolutely no intention of doing so and don’t bother to make that a secret at all.

        There is a difference between cooperation and one side unilaterally bending over backwards for the other.

            1. most of them seem to be running straight away from all those accomplishments. Most Americans think Obama has increased the deficit after all.

              Hard to win when you can’t claim your own victories.

              1. It’s the administration and Dem leadership’s own fault that the public doesn’t hear about their accomplishments and their own party members are running scared.  Lousy messaging combined with high spinelessness. Should have put more energy into getting the public behind them and their accomplishments, letting people in on little secrets like more jobs HAVE been created and most people are paying LOWER taxes, etc., and less on pointless negotiations for procuring cooperation that Rs themselves promised would NOT be forthcoming from Rs. How  

                1. was going on to ask how many know that most of the health care bill comes from R plans?  If not, whose fault is that? It’s not as if Rs are capable of hypnotizing the public and there is nothing Dems can do to get their message out. Dems need to get a clue from Obama on down.

                    3. is all the high powered pols on here and I couldn’t tell a damned one of them if we crossed paths in the grocery store…

                      🙂

  4. I have numerous friends who are Rs. Some are reasonable folks all the time, some are reasonable until an election cycle rolls around. But, I remember very well, immediately upon Bush’s reelection, the assumtion that Hillary would be our next nominee and the vitriol expressed toward her, almost universally by Rs. She was a lesbian, a Marxist, had an affair with V Foster, was a party to the “murder” of V. Foster, it was all part of a sinister plot hatched when Bill was a boy for he and a future bride to take over the country, allegations re Whitewater, etc.

    So, with my R friends, very few of whom are well off, discussions rarely get into the political realm as they can not believe that anyone in favor of health care reform is not trying to interfere with their rights, that the estate tax (which will have no impact on most of them) is not a socialist plot, etc.

    I agree, and have myself observed, that legislators can work together, in committee and out, on issues related to bark beetle, transportation, etc.

    But, Rs are generally not to be trusted. Very few are concerned with any farther into the future than their own money is concerned. Very few of them contribute to the community if it is for something that does not benefit them (recreation if they have kids for instance).

    Rs stand ready to believe the greatest statements of propaganda if it will prevent Ds from accomplishing part of an agenda that the voters have approved. Rs universally refer to a fee increase as a tax increase. Rs believe, universally again, that the very conservative paper which won’t be named, is a liberal tool.

    Integrity? I don’t see it from Rs. When I do it is so remarkable that it warrants congratulation.  

    1. They are the first to feed at the public trough and take public benefits yet they are the first to condemn government social spending because they selfishly refuse to pay their fair share, lest there be less public money left for them to take.

      The same principle is at work with denying a living wage to workers and the refusal to provide them benefits.  That is why they demonize unions.  That is why they demonize healthcare for all.  It’s all about them and their financial success and to hell with the “losers.”.

      But they could not succeed but for prevailing currents of public opinion, which they help shape.  They understand the concept of mass marketing and they are good at it.

      This deep recession has caused many average people who have good jobs with good benefits to dig in for fear of losing them.  The mass marketers tell them the Democrats want to tax them to death to provide for those without either, and that their health insurance premiums have been skyrocketing because of Democratic policies.

      The Democrats need to do a better job of telling the American people that it’s not the safety net programs, healthcare, the poor, the uninsured and the unemployed that are threatening the economy, but rather Republican tax benefits for the wealthy, the corporations who outsource our jobs, and unpaid-for wars.

      I will love watching the debate over extending the moratorium on the estate tax for the ultra wealthy.

    1. I had the opportunity to work with Russ a few times when I was at the AG’s office, and he was a wonderful, smart, compassionate man.  I’ve spoken with other Democrats about my experiences with him, and they all agree.  I wish I could vote for him sometime.

  6. I watched it an enjoyed it. I believe the concept is good but if we engage in unilateral detent we will be destroyed.  Pretty much what has happened over the last years.  We as reasonable people think people will be reasonable and then they run us over.  I will not accept that.  

      1. We could argue about that one for days. Who decides the definition of “Villifying?” The Club for Growth or the DSCC?  Your point is noble.

  7. I watched it an enjoyed it. I believe the concept is good but if we engage in unilateral detent we will be destroyed.  Pretty much what has happened over the last years.  We as reasonable people think people will be reasonable and then they run us over.  I will not accept that.  

  8. The Republicans have explicitly stated that the first thing they want is to win this election and the second thing they want is to win the 2012 Presidential election. “Finding solutions” is not a campaign message on the Republican side anywhere.

    Mitch McConnell:

    The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

    Mike Pence:

    There is going to be no compromise on ending the era of runaway federal spending, borrowing, bailouts, takeovers, deficits, and debt. No compromise on repealing Obamacare, lock, stock, and barrel.

    David Thielen is claiming conservatives really believe something they’ve explicitly said they don’t believe. Who are we to believe, Thielen or our own lying ears?

    Despite huge Democratic majorities, the Baucus health care subcommittee had equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats, with Republicans who unanimously refused to compromise on a single point. Despite huge Democratic majorities, the deficit reduction commission has an equal number of Republicans and Democrats, and all Republicans unanimously are pushing for tax cuts instead of compromise. Despite huge Democratic majorities, Obama tried to appoint Judd Gregg to a cabinet appointment, and he refused because he couldn’t imagine compromising with Obama on a single issue.

    Democrats have desperately, and to their detriment, reached out repeatedly to Republicans to construct bipartisan legislation on health care (using the Dole plan from the 90s as a starting point), stimulus package (loading it up with tax cuts rather than direct demand-side spending), and financial reform. And those are just the ones that passed anyway, with virtually no Republican support. Even a bill to cut taxes for small business and do nothing else was filibustered for months until two Republicans who weren’t running for re-election decided to support it.

    One side has made a lot of compromises and gotten nothing but bile in return. The other side not only has not even suggested compromise, it has explicitly campaigned on a platform of opposing everything Democrats do (without offering even a single positive solution–not even an idea!).

    Even on the blog level, who is our reasonable Republican to reciprocate David’s ridiculously kind interpretation of the facts? Our token “reasonable conservative,” Laughing Boy, has said he wants nothing to happen for two years except investigations, because Obama is “the worst President in history.” He’s on board with the crazies now. What’s left of the other Republicans with the occasional moderate view? Ali Hasan and Ellie have basically stated they’re becoming Democrats after this election.

    I respect what Stewart was trying to say, but your interpretation that both sides are equally to blame is a simple-minded distilling of his point which really misses the issue. It was a denunciation of Republican tactics. That’s why Stewart had Colbert on stage to represent the right wing, and why the rally ended with Colbert’s style of crazy being defeated.

    It’s not shameful to look at both sides and recognize that they’re different. It’s not something to be embarrassed by, that we’re the good guys and they’re not equally good. And pretending otherwise is exactly what’s enabled Republicans to get this bad. They’ve never faced a penalty for being behind nothing but obstruction.

      1. It was a week or two ago. It would be a huge pain in the ass to go find it, but I remember it. The upshot was that he wanted Republicans to obstruct everything for the next two years with investigations so that Obama couldn’t do anything else.

        There are no reasonable Republicans on this site anymore.

        1. You not only called for the Republican’ts to block everything they could via the legislative process, you’re also shrieking for Issa to hold non-stop hearings to investigate everything Obama’s ever done in office.

          This isn’t the thoughts of a moderate Repub who wants what’s best for the country, it’s the shrieking of a demagogue who only wants to destroy everything they can associated with an opposing political party.

          You sound like a Communist, obsessed with purifying the political process with the ONE TRUE PARTY to protect the Nation.

          That scares me.

          1. I’m not a shrieker, generally.  

            I do want what’s best for the country, and I have realized since about May of ’09 that the President and the Democratic leaders in Congress have a very, very different idea from me and a majority of Americans.  The stimulus and the way it was passed was bad, HCR was worse.  An abomination shoved down our throats and lied about to this day.

            The Iranians continue to laugh at us on their way to building a nuke, IMO the war in Afghanistan is being handled poorly (I don’t think you tell your enemies when you are leaving), and we’ve avoided a number of terror attacks out of sheer luck and the fact that most cavemen are morons.

            So, yes. I want to force the President to use that dizzying intellect to come up with more moderate ideas and meet the R’s halfway so that we can maybe get some really positive solutions put together.  His days of simply being able to be arrogant and ignorant because of a supermajority look like they’re about to come to a crashing halt.

            1. That’s what is represented in the stimulus and HCR that eventually passed. That’s why they are such “abominations” from my perspective.

              But funny that our President was elected by a majority of people who exercised their vote. But now that he tries to act on what he campaigned on, he is suddenly very wrong?

            2. because without it, the Afghan gov’t won’t do shit to get their country ready. We got played that way once in Iraq, but now that we’re leaving the country the national government has figured out they need to unfuck their military most riki-tik or the Iranians will be rolling their US-supplied tanks and infantry into Baghdad.

              That bungled raid they just pulled off on an Iraqi Catholic Church shows that they’re still in the minor leagues, but it wasn’t done by TF 373 or any of the other Special Ops units in theater. They’re doing it on their own because they have to.

              This isn’t new – when we started withdrawing from Kuwait last time, we let both the Kuwaiti and Saudi gov’t know we were off the peninsula on DATE X, and they needed to have their shit together by that date.

              As far as the meet in the middle – BULLSHIT. They have already stated that their goal is to kick him out of the White House, and they’ll use all means necessary to do it. PERIOD.

              They’re not going to do anything that resembles a moderate idea. And it’s probably going to work as well as it did in ’95.

    3. …it must be stopped.

      The far-left agenda is wrong.  

      The way ObamacareВ® came to pass was so disingenuous, it was a symptom.

      Why do you think the Dems are going to get such a monumental ass kicking next Tuesday?  Because they’re so right on the issues?

      1. and absolutely nothing more than that.

        If you think it’s TARP or “Obamacare” or stimulus, you’re wrong. That may animate the 2% of the electorate that thinks of themselves as Tea Baggers, but the vast majority in the middle are voting on jobs. Period.

        And if Republicans have their way, they’ll sink the economy again over the next two years in an attempt to lay the blame at Obama’s feet for 2012. Because your side thinks winning is the only thing. My side thinks getting the right things done is actually more important.

  9. that you aren’t a even a moderate. You seem very interested in placating the right but call yourself a Democrat because it will win you more friends. This post is craptacular.  

    1. When Buck shills and trolls use David’s quote against Bennet as their SIG his credentials as a Dem are void in my book.  By the way I am defnitely riping “Craptacular” for my vocabulary. Nice!

      2. Why, then, do you believe that if you’re nicer, more conciliatory, more understanding, more even-handed, just more sweetness’n’light toward them, they will finally, at long last, love you?

        1. Because that is all that is left. Literally. The right is just better at playing in the mud and always have been… they are better at framing the argument. 34% of the American people know that TARP was signed by Bush, 66% are wrong or said they had no idea, and that is because if you listen to the airwaves you would think it is all Obama’s fault. Stimulous created millions of jobs in our country… listen to the airwaves and it would appear it didn’t. You play in the mud, you are going to lose to the professional mud wrestler every time. Stewart was dead right, if the media/politicians informs the public truthfully then we can have an honest debate not a mud fight.

  10. Tancredo is very smart.  These are recent statements with which I not only don’t agree, but I think they are unAmerican, designed to divide us and are inconsistent with our Constitution:

    1) When asked how he would treat families were some members were American citizen by birthright and others were not.  His response was “I’d send them all back.”

    2) He has said that everyone should speak English.

    3) He talked about immigrants, not specifying legal or illegal, as people who do not “share our values.”

    4) He has said that Obama is more dangerous than terrorists.

    This is a man who speaks to our prejudices and who wishes to destroy the country I love.  I don’t name call…(except when I am talking about my own party..which I claim the right to do)  but I fundamentally believe I have the absolute obligation as an American citizen to denounce those attitudes and assertions which I believe are designed to divide us, to target some citizens as not entitled to the full protection of our laws.   I will not be a good German.

    1. You pretty much said it all regarding Tancredo, as far as I’m concerned. I have nothing to add to a perfect comment.

      Rec’d 10 zillion times, if I could.  

  11. I appreciated your diary; I’m amazed that so many here have found it an example of complacency or worse. Any Democrat who won’t treat the Republicans with respect merits the same reprimand as a Republican who refuses to treat the Democrats with respect (I’m looking at you, GOPWarrior, No2Dems, marilou, et al). I know a slew of Republican state legislators – they want what’s best for Colorado, even if their view of “best” differs very substantially from my own.

    I’ll write more tomorrow when I have more time. Until then, thanks for standing up for sanity.

    Thought experiment for David’s critics from the left: Marsha Looper is a conservative GOP legislator whose hallmark issue is property rights. She regularly blocks pieces of legislation that would allow the state to use eminent domain to take control of private property. It drives Democrats crazy, and I wouldn’t support Representative Looper if I were registered in her district. Nevertheless, what is it about someone like Representative Looper that strikes you as unAmerican? It seems to me that she’s standing up for what she believes to be right.

    1. what is it about someone like Representative Looper that strikes you as unAmerican?

      I’m not criticizing David “from the left,” but, rather, asking that he treat the facts involved in his argument with the same respect he wants extended to political opponents.

      Yes, it’s great to acknowledge we all want the same things — except when we don’t.

      Some politicians want to criminalize abortion, while others want to keep it safe and legal.

      Some want to give the richest Americans a huge tax cut, on top of the tax cut everyone would get under other plans, while others think it’s the height of hypocrisy from “deficit hawks” who are really out to raid the Treasury for their rich patrons.

      Some thought it was a good idea to invade Iraq without a plan and without paying for it, while others disagreed.

      These are not disputes on the margins — they’re what define the parties.

      There’s no need to demonize opponents, but drawing sharp distinctions where those distinctions exist is the stuff elections are made of.

      1. We only confuse things in politics when we try to blur the public policy lines.  There are distinct and important differences between the two major parties.  We can work together some times, on some issues.  But we shouldn’t overlook the other party’s positions which are hugely different from ours, and we shouldn’t try to “polish” them into something they’re not.

  13. David swore he would not seek more than three terms in Congress.  That pledge helped him win a four-way 1998 Republican primary.  Once in power, that power corrupted him just as Lord Acton said he did.  So he lied, broke his solemn pledge, and was elected to a fourth and fifth term.

      Tancredo has no personal honor.  Bob Schaffer made the same pledge, as did Scott McInnis.   McInnis also lied.  Schaffer, to his lasting credit, kept his word.

       How can I trust Tancredo on anything when he has already proven he will lie like a trooper in pursuit of personal power.

  14. I appreciate that, and I’ve always respected your views on issues even when we disagree. I think you’re the only person on the left I can actually say that about. My only complaint though is that the left wasn’t talking about compromise and coming together when Bush was president. They only want to do it when it benefits them politically, because their majority is danger, i.e. “we won and now you have to compromise with us instead of boot us out of office”. So, I will be happy for Republicans and Democrats to work together, but only after Dems have been punished at the ballot box for their reckless and arrogant handling of the government in the last two years.

    3. This is exactly my point. We would all appreciate a more civil conversation but when we let our guard down these classist, evangelical and racist people just kick us where it counts. I as well know and respect many republicans including my boss. He and I have civil conversations. But he is an economic conservative. I can forgive a wealthy guy trying to protect himself from paying taxes. I can not forgive people who think gays have an illness, or that women can not decide their own reproductive heatlh,  or that all our Hispanic neighbors are trying to kill us.

      David you are enabler of people like BJ.

    5. that nobody on the right can say anything decent about Democrats, while we have plenty of Democrats bending over backwards to look on the bright side of every Republican position. I think it’s very telling.

      Democrats seek compromise. Republicans seek power.

      And of course, Bush famously got lots of Democrats to work with him on things like No Child Left Behind, the Patriot Act, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and his tax cuts. Lots of those things passed while Democrats had a Senate majority. I’ll forgive BJ for not knowing anything about this since he just started paying attention to politics in July 2010, but some of us are old enough to remember how Democrats compromise whether they’re in power or out of power.

          1. If the President had had his head out of his ass, maybe we could have actually accomplished something good for the country.

            Nope.  All ego, and now, pay the fucking price.  

              1. Ok.  Demonstrate this, then:

                Democrats bending over backwards to look on the bright side of every Republican position. I think it’s very telling.

                Democrats seek compromise. Republicans seek power.

                1. At least elected Dems…will be seeking jobs in two days.

                  The true beauty of what’s about to happen is to show the far left how alone they really are.

                  Common sense has to rear it’s beautiful head every now and then.

                2. You’d see that I gave three explicit examples of that happening when Democrats were in power and three explicit examples of that when Republicans were in power.

                  It’s hard to understand that paragraph if you don’t read the ones that came before.

                  I understand you have an agenda and will not be interested in a reasonable discussion on anything until after the election. I’ll meet you there.

        2. As I posted on Saturday:

          Unoriginal

          The President (G.W. Bush) declared Thursday (2 days after his reelection in 2004):

             Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style and I’ve got will of the people” which suggests he believes that his election is a broad political mandate. In announcing plans to reform Social Security, medical malpractice, the education system, and the tax code, he said, “I’ll reach out to everyone who shares our goals.”

          Found here.

          (Oh, and don’t forget about the reasonable approach of Newt Gingrich … So if you’re going to pout over an “I won,” LB, you are really just showing us that we have overestimated your reasonableness.)

          1. I certainly haven’t overestimated the reasonableness (or ability to reason) of a single TeaPublican on this site. Especially since most of them are obviously shills or sockpuppeteers or juvenile wannabe bullying provocateurs.

            They is what they is, and they isn’t reasonable.

  15. First-time poster, long-time reader.  Please forgive any faux pas.  Lo siento.  I was at the rally.  Just got back home about an hour ago.  

    David, I think you missed the point.  Yes, Jon Stewart did talk about working together.  But those of us there know (and you do too) that we gathered and watched as a response, a mild remonstrance-not-protest against the Glenn Beck rally and a year of tea party gatherings.  We were there because we don’t agree with those folks, nor with most Republicans.  We’re not mad at our president, we’re annoyed by all the noise and distortions, most of which are from the right.  We’re not mad enough to carry guns and threaten rebellion, we’re irritated enough to get together and carry silly signs and wear elf costumes and check out the pirate dragon boat (pretty cool).  

    The point – we’ve seen all of you pissed-off people, and we’re tired of it.  There are a hell of a lot of us who don’t like what the right is saying or doing, whether it’s my brother or the Senate Republicans.  Or Tom Tancredo or Ken Buck.  We don’t buy your b.s., we think y’all are a bunch of fools.  We are too, but at least we can admit it and lighten up.  

    I appreciate that you have met with many Rs, and feel that have good intentions.  But they are still wrong.  And David, maybe the question isn’t “Can private enterprise do this better?” but simply “how can we do this better?”

    2. It may be more comforting to take it that way. But I think he meant exactly what he said. And that speech called both sides, and all of us that turn everything into extremes, to account.

      You said “But they are still wrong.” Are they always? As people are infallible, there must be times we are wrong and they are right.

      1. Repeal healthcare reform, no additional stimulus, privatize SS, loosen up bank regulations, more drilling, less investment in alternative energy, cut education funding and no doubt impeachment investigations.  Yes, they are wrong.

    3. And there are a hell of a lot more of us who don’t like what the left is saying or doing. You guys can dish it out but you sure can’t take it. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

  16. I don’t say we should agree with Republicans like Ken Buck or Tom Tancredo. I don’t say we should not fight hard for what we believe is right. I’m merely saying we should not vilify them in the process.

    It’s easy to treat an individual you mostly agree with with respect. It’s a lot more difficult to do the same with someone that you fundamentally disagree with. But if Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were eventually able to become friends, I think we can too.

    1. is not the Republican Party of the past.  There actually was a time when the 2 sides could be friends and work together for the good of the country.

      Unfortunately, the Republican Party of today are only for their power and they don’t care about the good of the country.  This is evidenced by their voting against bills that would have helped the economy, even though they wrote those bills or helped to craft them.  Today the Republican Party is willing to extend the Recession in order to make it look like the Dems can’t get anything done.  (I’ll post the link to the 400+ accomplishments of the Obama Adm again if necessary.)  

      I didn’t always like the way the Republicans worked with Clinton in the ’90s, in spite of the vitriol spewing from them, but at least there could be discussions with some of them.  That does not appear to be the case today.  Just listen to McConnell, Boehner, Pence etc.  Their intention is to cause everything that Pres. Obama does to fail by their recalcitrance when their intention should be what is best for the country.

      Part of the reason Pres Obama is having a little setback is because he is a visionary for the future… education, Made in America green energy, green energy jobs, a visionary space program instead of just dumping money into the same program after 50 years, building international relationships and much more.  Most politicians have trouble seeing past their nose, let alone to what will help the next generation, and the next!

    2. Dems don’t need to vilify, just being truthful about how harmful and destructive some of their ideas are is enough.

      However, where is your plea to them not to vilify us?  In most cases, that I see, the Right is the most extreme at this.

      1. He thinks Obama and his administration are a greater threat to this country than the Soviet nuclear arsenal or al Qaeda ever were.

        David, you really think pointing out that Tancredo loves his grandchildren brings that particular discussion back to earth?

    4. You’ve already got David Chestnut as a friend, David. Wouldn’t it be neat if you two were both to pass away on the same day and your last words are, “Chestnut still survives.”

    6. Once again people try very hard to explain things to you, politely and civilly, and you ignore them all and paint yourself as a victim.

      If I don’t think Buck is a villain, it doesn’t mean I have to call him honest or say that he’s interested in working with Democrats. He’s neither of those things. Doesn’t make him Satan or Hitler, but those are not the only two options. I don’t think you’ve ever understood this.

      1. Yes they are. If you’re not Tom Tancredo you want to erase the border and completely ignore illegal immigration. If you’re not Marsha Looper, you’re shamefully accusing her of being un-American.  

      2. Buck is honest, and he has worked with Democrats. Wasn’t the big attack on him in the primary that he was Bill Ritter’s best man?

        If you guys would have listened to David, you would be doing just fine right now. Of course, this is why conservatives were happy Obama won the nomination instead of Clinton, because they knew this day would come.

        1. Yeah, that was the big attack on him in the primary.

          Other than his ethical problems that cost him his career as a federal prosecutor, the shadowy construction company taking stimulus money and turning around to finance Buck’s Senate run, and some problems he had with Republican women when he spoke his mind.

          But you’re right, beej, having a friendship with another prosecutor long before either was involved in partisan politics — that proves Buck has worked with Democrats.

  17. Just reading through these comments, I hear all the Yes-buts:

    “Yes, but the Dems/Pubs don’t show respect so why should the Pubs/Dems?.”

    It’s such a stupid, childish argument. I wish it would stay in elementary school. Being respectful is about what YOU do, not what the other person does.

  18. When did the first civil war begin? Was it at Fort Sumpter? Or was the first skirmish at the Constitional Convention, when states with economies dependant on slavery got their way with the design of the Senate?

    Seems to me that it’s naive to be saying, in effect, let’s all be nice and pass a resolution declaring July 5 “Day after Independence Day.”

    Fuggedabout the rhetoric, however feeble or vile. Government is now, and always has been, a branch of the economy, and vice versa. For the past 30 years, there has been a concerted campaign by the Right in the never-ending class war to reverse losses in the 30s–a largely successful campaign.

    Opinion? Failure to look around and see how great everything still is? No, comrades, a matter of statistics, figures about the shift of wealth and income to a thin sliver at the top to the detriment of the lower 98%.

    Rhetoric? No, a statistical decline in manufacturing jobs, which bring a much, much higher added value per man-hour than service jobs.

    I’ll refrain from repeating figures showing America’s decline, relative to other countries, in areas such as education, life-span, even technology!

    The marvel isn’t that right-wing apologists for the oligarchy aren’t polite; in my limited exposure on this site, they simply have no civilized manners. No wonder they don’t cite facts, figures, or economic theory–those would destroy their “case.”

    No, the marvel is that the Left still thinks this is a war of words.

    Cookies ‘n’ milk on the Mall? Extra Oreo if you’re polite? Don’t think so.

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

83 readers online now

Newsletter

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