CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

30%↑

15%↑

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

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
February 12, 2013 08:26 AM UTC

Thou Doth Protest Too Much, Dean Singleton

  • 30 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Yesterday, we discussed an editorial fro the Denver Post from this past weekend that bore telltale signs of editorial intervention from the Post's publisher, the notoriously anti-labor Dean Singleton. Singleton, as we briefly recounted, has a long history of suddenly inserting his boorish writing style and penchant for hyperbole bordering on the silly whenever the subject of organized labor comes up in Colorado. The Post's infamous 2007 front-page editorial ludicrously comparing then-Gov. Bill Ritter to Jimmy Hoffa is the most-cited example of this, though this weekend's wild-eyed screed against a bill making it easier for firefighters in Colorado to organize is sure to add to the legend of our local would-be Citizen Kane.

And folks, as it turns out, there's possibly a very good reason why Singleton and/or the Post's editorial board felt it necessary to go totally over the top against this legislation making it easier for firefighters to unionize–shrilly denouncing the bill as "ill-conceived," "onerous," "deplorable," a "disaster," and "fundamental nonsense." This is harsher language than the Post has used against much more clearly bad things. We suppose they could have adding something about Senate Bill 13-025 "pulling the plug on Grandma," but there are length considerations.

But back to why the Post went so over the top on this bill. Basically, nobody agrees with them.

Results from a statewide survey released today by Myers Research reveals strong voter support (86%) for ensuring collective bargaining rights for Colorado fire fighters. The timely results of this survey are arriving just as a firefighter collective bargaining bill, Senate Bill 13-025, passed the Senate on Tuesday, February 6, 2013, and moves to the House.

“This survey demonstrates overwhelming support for fire fighters and to ensure that we have a seat at the table to negotiate as a group,” said Mike Rogers, President of the Colorado chapter of the International Association of Fire Fighters. “86% of voters supporting collective bargaining rights for firefighters sends a strong message to our elected officials at all level about the priorities of voters.”

Andrew Myers, president of Myers Research | Strategic Services, said, “It is rare to see such a high level of support for an issue like this.  Public sentiment is clearly with firefighters on collective bargaining rights and legislators should be wary of being on the wrong side of this issue.”

That's out of a press release yesterday from the Colorado Professional Fire Fighters union: according to this poll from Myers Research, a whopping 86% of voters responded affirmatively to this simple question:

And as it relates to firefighters in Colorado, do you favor or oppose allowing firefighters to negotiate with local governments over issues like better safety equipment, ensuring safe staffing levels, and health care and survivorship benefits if they are killed in the line of duty?

Seriously, folks, who is going to say "no" to that question except for a tiny fraction of ideologically-stilted union bashers–and apparently, the Denver Post editorial board? The answer, of course, is nobody. Regular people just don't look at firefighters and see greedy union moochers. In fact, a 2009 Gfk poll found that firefighters are the most trusted profession in the eyes of the public. We haven't seen a poll on the trustworthiness of newspaper editors, but we seriously doubt they poll at 92% like the firefighters did.

To conclude, what we have here is a bill that takes an action supported by fully 86% of voters, in support of public safety professionals who over 90% of the public considers trustworthy. It's the public-opinion equivalent of building Mother Teresa a new orphanage. Framed the right way, this should be a no-brainer.

Instead, the generally liberal editorial board of the state's newspaper of record has a sophomoric meltdown.

If you don't know the history behind it all, like Dean Singleton's pathological hatred of unions and telltale employment of middle-school grade hyperbole when he seizes the editorial board mic Kanye West-style–that's what we imagine happening anyway–you might begin to think the Post's schizophrenic Obamacare-loving union-bashing viewpoint makes sense. We're here to inform the community that it's actually not supposed to.

Tweet
Share

Comments

30 thoughts on “Thou Doth Protest Too Much, Dean Singleton”

  1. Just because you disagree with the Denver Post's editorial does not mean that it went "totally over the top" .   Its editorial was well written and persuasive. 

    1. Oh please. An editorial presenting as wildly radiical and dangerous something so widely accepted as reasoanble can only be described as over the top. Are 86% of us frothng at the mouth incendiaries?  This was hardly well or calmly reasoned, agreement or disagreement with idea of collective bargaining for our firefighter's aside.

      1. Agreed. Argue the facts if you want, but the editorial was written like like a diary from an 11 year old girl. And they usually don't write this badly.

    2. Ok then, defend your assertion.

      How is this bill a "disaster" and "fundamental nonsense."  One can argue against a position without such hyperbole, so this bill should be particularly onerous to justify such language.

      Any well-reasoned response should be specific to this bill, and not a generic screed against the evils of collective bargaining.

      1. It undermines homerule and risks hurting city budgets.  

        You may not think those are a big deal.  That's your call.  But that hardly makes the Denver Post's editorial "overboard".

        1. Valid points perhaps, but not a "disaster" and "fundamental nonsense", which I would take to mean that it would render municipality budgeting unmanageable, and illogical to its core.

          The problem with the piece was not its point of view but its purple prose, the defense of which is either impossible or beyond your skills.

          I grade your response D-

          1. Again, you are substituting your own biases here to attack the Post on tone when you disagree with their substance. 

            From my P.O.V. this seems to be a measured and well written editorial.  I can see why you are angry though – heaven forbid the Post step outside the liberal reservation on a single issue – it might give them "ideas" 😉 

            1. OK Elliot, here's why I think you're a troll.  You may not intend to act that way, and maybe you can't help yourself, but your responses are trollish.

              Words have meaning (or not, if you're a lawyer.)  I identified the specific words which I felt made this eitorial over the top and what I felt they mean.

              Your response did not address these specific issues I raised and instead made it about me.  You responded by making this about my perceived emotions and biases, though nothing in my posts was emotional in tone.

              I'm trying to address you in the manner you prefer, so please clean up your act.

              1. DaftPunk,
                Actually, you didn't adress anything on point.  The editorial went to home rule considerations.  You may not care about that.  That's fine – nobody says you have to like home rule.  However, the Denver Post apparently does.  And the fact that they disagree with you hardly makes their Op-Ed "beneath their standards."
                 

        2. Please read editorial. Please read diary. Please read comments.  Note that nobody here is saying that merely being opposed to the concept is over the top. If you still can't see what has provoked the ridicule… well, we tried.

        3. It does NOT hurt city budgets. It only requires collective bargaining, not results that one party would choose. I've negotiated union contracts and did not make them happy. It is hard and time consuming but not destructive to recognize that a group of employees has collective interests

        1. I'd kindly ask that you avoid bringing up the (misspelled) name of 16 month old infants in a public forum.  I don't think that is too big of a request. 

          1. You mean like your Facebook page which you invited us to look at, which contains an album entitled "Dagny Fladen-Political Prop?"

            The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

            Sorry I'm not up to speed on the spelling of Ayn Rand heroines.  Your kid's name tells us a lot about you:

            The libertarian worship of individual freedom, and contempt for social convention, comes easiest to people who have never really had to grow up.

            http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/11/28/111128fa_fact_packer?currentPage=all

            1. Again, I ask you not to bring up my daughter's name unnecessarily into a political conversation on the internet.  I don't think that is an undue request. 

              If you want to be a jerk about it I of course cannot stop you.

              1. (because, from where I come from, dragging a 16 month old toddler into a debate in the fashion you are doing is slightly despicable…and disturbing to boot)

                1. Here's a link to changing your Facebook privacy settings, if that's is what your really concerned about.

                   

                  https://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+adjust+your+facebook+privacy+settings&aq=f&oq=how+to+adjust+your+facebook+privacy+settings&aqs=chrome.0.57j62l3.8785&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&safe=off&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=facebook.com+privacy+settings&oq=facebook.com+privacy+settings&gs_l=serp.12..0j0i7i30j0i8i30l2.3742.3742.1.5111.1.1.0.0.0.0.68.68.1.1.0.les%3B..0.0…1c.1.3.psy-ab.EkASgJ7afp0&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.42452523,d.aWM&fp=74fff6736d638014&biw=1014&bih=628

                  Like I said before, I don't give two shits about your daughter, only what her name and your defense of the gun industry on December 14th says about you as the parent of a young child.

                  1. Dude – I know how to change my privacy setttings. My point is that your dragging my 16 month old daughter into this discussion speaks volumes about your character. 

                    1. Because of my work and passions I can't blog using my real name, but if I were going to proudly proclaim on public websites about the vibrant political discussion on my Facebook page, I'd be damn sure to have a different page, or at least tighter privacy settings for my family photos.

                      You, however, besides the dubious decision to name your daughter after the heroine of a work of grade-B fiction with hatred and selfishness at its heart, parade her as a "political prop."  I mention it only to reflect on your poor decision making. Does your "girl" like that name?

                    2. DaftPunk,
                      Maybe you don't have kids.  Maybe you do.  If you do, maybe you like to have them photographed with famous people or on Santa's lap.  I don't know and I don't really care. 

                      What I do care about is that you, and Rocco, are dragging my 16 month old daughter into a political discussion.  That speaks volumes about  your character, or lack thereof. 

  2. Yesterday I tried to explain to young Elliot that jerking people around with the circular arguments, constant end arounds, the pretending not to grasp the context, and shooting before aiming with unsubstantiated, false claims only serves to provoke people into treating him like a child.

    He didn't get it yesterday, and the concept of intellectually honest debate seems to elude him here.

    Elliot, listen up.

    When you attempt to reinvent or reshape or reframe a perfectly valid and accurate point, such as DaftPunk's take on your criticism of Pols' position, when instead of countering with a valid and accurate comeback, thereby changing the subject to "subjective", you forfeit the debate.

    The subject is not DaftPunk's supposed "biases". You attempted to change the subject, to make it a personal attack on DaftPunk,  instead of bringing honest defense of that anti-union piece of shit column, by the cowardly Vietnam era draft doging and sissy texan Singleton.

    I told you yesterday, you don't have the juice to play in this league.

    DaftPunk,as well as a whole slew of people here will eat you alive, embarrass you, and plant a foot firmly up your ass if you can't do better than this.

    A tip…………….Don't bring fox news urban legend type non-truth hannity/o'reilly/limbaugh talking points to this site. Like I did yesterday on the filibuster proof Senate that lasted all of 30 days, these people will ram pinko bullshit back down your throat.

    Know what you're talking about when you post. We've allready got PUtad, nock, and agop wasting peoples' time.

    Besides, if you can't or won't debate honestly, why come to this site? Redstate and that colopeakpol bounce false copperhead/pinko talking points to eachother.

    Gotta go watch the State of the Union.

    2. Rocco,
      Don't you find it slightly odd that you are defending a post obstensibly about "overboard" rhetoric with the following?
      1) "anti-union piece of shit column"
      2) "DaftPunk,as well as a whole slew of people here will eat you alive, embarrass you, and plant a foot firmly up your ass"
      3) " fox news urban legend type non-truth hannity/o'reilly/limbaugh talking points"

      /snicker

      As for a personal attack, on DaftPunk, care to be specific?

      1. You missed the point……………………..again.

        You didn't bring anything new to the debate, you only changed the subject to "subjective", questioning DaftPunk's motives, attacking her political beliefs and I called you on it.

        As far as "over the top", etc., this started in about '92, when First Lady Hillary Clinton took over the Health Care overhaul efforts and President Clinton attempted to enact his Presidency.

        Gingrich launched a form of political total war on Democrats that hadn't been seen. Coulter, o'reilly, limbaugh, beck, boortz, rosen, savage, boyles, the pinko members of the House and Senate, and the redleg base at large began the personal politics of destruction on "liberals", "evil guvbmint", "wellfare recipients", just about anything progressive or Democratic leaning.

        They framed the Democratic half of the country as "evil",

        It became a self feeding frenzy, and the republican party played to its most uneducated, uninformed and bigoted of its' vile demographics……the christ-ees,  military service avoiding/draft dodging gun loons, and homophobes.

        Nobody informed thinks conservatism or libertarianism works for an entire society. The trick is to get enough rubes to hate enough demographics to enable the top 1% to rig the deck.

        So it's been for 20 years, really since reagan. Some unapolagetic New Deal Roosevelt Democrats like me never accepted the "role" the redleg scum carved out for the left center leaning 55% of the country We see the pinko for what he/she is………..an anti-American, unpatriotic, selfish, willingly uninformed, "I got mine, you go fuck yourself"  craven, military service avoiding while cheering on unending wars for corporate profit,, cheap, thieving  entitlement hating while on entitlements,, "govbmint" hating while working in government hypocrites. Mostly white, bigoted, religious to the extreme thathe/she loves everything about Jesus except how he lived and what he taught. The pinko professes love for his country but won't defend her, and by the way, hates half the people that live here.

        Your professed strain of this virus is the most unbridled and hypocritical. "libertarians" are mooches to the extreme. And you know exactly what I mean.

        You give nothing, only take. Rand Paul. Ayn Rand. Ryan.

        Hackery in its' purest form.

        I'll debate you. But never waste my time. Never run with a bullshit line from the right. Never try to con, fool, or mislead.

        As for DaftPunk, read your post. You tried jerking her around. You're doing it again.

        1. Well, it is kind of tough to find your point in your "overbroad" diatribes all while you are dragging my 16 month old toddler into a discussion. 

          But let's go back through things.  I had a simple point: that Post's editorial is fine both on substance and in tone.  For all of your complaint's and "overbroad" attacks, you still haven't gotten to either substantive argument.  I'd suggest, that before you go pulling the next photo album of my 16 month old daughter down from my facebook page that you actually reread what I wrote and make crap up about it.  It might help 😉

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

219 readers online now

Newsletter

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