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 18, 2014 06:22 AM UTC

Tuesday Open Thread

  • 107 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

I like not fair terms and a villain's mind.

–William Shakespeare, from The Merchant of Venice

Tweet
Share

Comments

107 thoughts on “Tuesday Open Thread”

  1. Barack Obama and Mark Udall were talking back in the early days of Obama's first term about their progressive agenda.  Obama sought Udall's advice as to whether he should go ahead with a trillion dollar plan to change one sixth of the economy while the country was just coming our of a recession.  Udall asked Obama, what could possibly go wrong?

  4. Dear Andrew,

    One cause might be something you support; a significant decline in state & local government employment which is out of the hands of Barack and Mark. You don't get to play both ways.

    state and government payroll employment since January 2007 Read more at http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2013/11/employemt-report-solid-report-ex.html#Q45KWsdAwkKXRALs.99

    Then, there is the fact that federal government employment has not grown under Barack's watch even as the population has increased.

    Consider that federal spending under Obama is actually

    Or, maybe, it the fault of private employers.
    "The labor market stops working for Americans after they've been out of work for too long. Employers simply screen them out."
    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/02/the-shame-of-americas-long-term-unemployment-crisis/283655/

    1. I think a more fundamental problem is jobs are disappearing. As we accelerate automation and interconnectedness, tons of jobs go away. That both means fewer jobs for those looking and that lots of people are trained in a skill no longer needed.

      1. DT,

        You are right.  This is an important factor that is not really being addressed.

        Many of us were in the "buggy whip industry" and then cars were invented.

      2. Were you the source of an article I saw the other day about the potential for our society to head to a proto- Star Trek economy? That we may be reaching a point in technological advancement that limits employment opportunities such that we have to switch to a guaranteed living wage condition where only those who want to work need to work?

      3. While automation is reduces employment in some job categories, there are huge segments of the economy reliant on actual, human workers, think teachers, hospitality, restaurant, services, construction. 

        If you look at charts of employment by category, you see that private industry is improving modestly, while government and construction is way down. Automation doesn't explain that differential.

        Why is government employment way down? Cuts to teachers, police, fire, city services due to tax revenue shortfalls and Republican governors. Nothing to do with automation.

        The housing sector drove a good part of the Bush bubble. Since the crash, housing construction has been far below population growth. Why isn't housing recovering? Is automation making construction companies hire fewer workers? 

        Lack of demand for housing is caused by job losses and wage decreases for middle class and lower income purchasers. Demand-side stimulus would make the biggest difference in kick-starting the economy:

        • Increase minimum wage to $15 (1970s equivalent)
        • Lower tuition costs and grants to make college affordable
        • Federal investment in construction and infrastructure
        • Increase safety net spending on Social Security, Health care, Unemployment, etc.

        1. PH, If you raise the minimum wage, less minimum wage earners get hired.  If you decrease the revenue generated to pay for eductional services, you need to raise taxes and less people get hired,  If the Federal government is going to spend more money on construction, etc,etc, more taxes need to be raised and less people get hired.  Your solutions make the problem worse.

          1. If you raise the minimum wage, minimum wage earners have more money to spend – most of it in establishments that pay near minimum wage rates. The offset is probably not quite one-to-one, but there is a rising tide effect to raising the minimum wage.

            The people who are now making a living wage are also less dependent on government programs, reducing government "entitlement" spending and the need for Earned Income tax credits. And they make enough money to pay taxes, further reducing government debt ratios.

            Further, there are several good examples out there of companies paying a living wage and performing well that otherwise look a lot like other companies paying minimum wage. It's not that Darden restaurants or McDonald's *can't* survive paying their employees a living wage, it's that their profit and expansion business model's style would be cramped if they did.

            1. I'm curious why you think a known and proven lying SOS would care if you post fact or any type of accurate analysis or serious question.  Little troll doesn't even have the courage to admit he was caught out in a lie, your sound reasoning means nothing.  I doubt he can even follow along.  Just saying.  

              2. Some day a conservative might surprise me, I guess.

                Also, I believe that the limited government folks have an interest in a minimum wage increase; they give a little on some regulation (that already exists at the lower level), and they get lower "entitlement" spending in return.

              3. Troll dumps a pile of right-wing assumptions, assertions and folderol. I don't reallly care about him or his opinion. But, each time, he is making us a generous gift, an opportunity to discuss how the world really works. Yes, the Laffer curve is bogus, but stimulating the economy and improving the Social Safety net really, really matters to people; Well, the 99% of us. 

                Same thing with climate science deniers.

                Mostly they're lawyers, lobbyists, PR representatives of Big Oil and right-wing political activists. They are paid handsomely to spread BS about and poison the public well-of-opinion. It is useless to try to convince them, because they just repeat the SOS or switch arguments. Nevertheless, it is always helpful to clean out the poison by reminding the rest of us about reality. Simple things, like the idea that weather is different from climate.

                1. There is not a scrap of evidence that any previous minimum wage raise has cost jobs. In fact minimum wage raises are followed by economic improvement including on the job front. It's pretty simple.

                  1. Cool, so why stop at $10 or $15, make it $100.  I could use a raise, too.  How much are they going to charge for a big mac if they pay their people $100 per hour?

                     

                    1. Because beyond a certain point it's simply inflation. Below that point the feedback loop creates positive effects.

                      A raise of the minimum wage to $10.10 will lift 900,000 people out of poverty and increase the wages of 16.5 million people. (Source: CBO) Studies show that the effect on unemployment is statistically insignificant – either plus or minus. (The CBO report says 0.3% decrease in employment; for those who haven't been watching lately, that's not the same as increasing unemployment…)

                  2.  

                    The CBO report says that zero job loss is a perfectly reasonable estimate from a minimum wage hike, that 16.5 Million American low wage workers would benefit but that there is a possibility that up to .5 M jobs might be lost.  Get that?  16.5 M WILL benefit, 0- 500,000 jobs MAY be lost.  Any idea how Republicans and their stupid smelly trolls will spin it?  Yes, in a cherry-picked vacuum.  Clean up on aisle 4! 

                    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/18/us-usa-wage-cbo-idUSBREA1H1VE20140218

                    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/02/18/cbo-obamas-minimum-wage-plan-would-cost-jobs-but-help-millions/

                     

                    More specifically, the CBO found that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour (and then indexing it to inflation) would reduce employment by between a very small amount and 1 million workers, with the agency's best guess being about 500,000 workers. Republicans are seizing on that finding, with a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) saying: "This report confirms what we’ve long known: While helping some, mandating higher wages has real costs, including fewer people working."

                    At the same time, the report finds that about 16.5 million low-wage Americans would see an increase in their earnings as a result of the hike in the minimum wage. 

                    1. NY Times: 

                      A popular Democratic proposal to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, championed by President Obama, could reduce total employment by 500,000 workers by the second half of 2016. But it would also lift 900,000 families out of poverty and increase the incomes of 16.5 million low-wage workers in an average week.

                      (emphasis Twitty)

                      I have to say if I worked for the Dark Side I would be so very depressed at the quality of trolls these days, I know garbage in, garbage out and all.  But really.  It's depressing.  

                      And here is the link to the actual report, since of course Speaker Boehner, CPP, and thoe smelly cratures from mommy's basement/under the bridge don't want you to bother with the actual report or data, hoping you too will join the low-info crowd that is their base.  

                    2. See in GOP and troll land math too is a liberal conspiracy.  Thus if you lift a million people oput of poverty, raise the wages of 16.5 M but may casue the loss of between 0 and 1 M jobs, its somehow a lost becasue…wait for it…President Obama supports it.  

                      http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/minimum-wage-hike-cbo-report-103630.html

                      Politico: CBO: Minimum wage hike would boost earnings for over 16.5M, cost 500k jobs
                       

                      Raising the minimum wage would cost thousands of jobs while simultaneously lifting wages for millions more, according to a new report that instantly inflamed an election-year battle over income inequality.

                       

                       

                       

                       

                      PS: I have no clue how formatting works on the 'new improved' site because all those fancy buttons above are for appearances ' sake rather than any real WYSIWYG functionality.  I suppose that''s the price you get for the cheapo wordpress/polish spam backdoor 

          2. As to Federal construction projects: they're an investment in our country. Companies who ship product rely on those roads to be well maintained – bad roads leads to higher maintenance and delays which lead to higher costs, which lead to lower job growth.

            On the other hand, taking tax dollars and spending them on construction puts that money in to the economy, hiring people and causing money to circulate, which results in more hiring.

            Why is it that conservatives think that tax dollars somehow disappear from the economy? This has to be one of the most idiotic assumptions in modern politics.

          3. Always pleased to review Econ 101 for the economically illiterate. Well, maybe Econ 102, as we're talking about macro economics. 

            In a recession, government spending (demand-side) boosts the economy, and the multiplier of stimulus money is about 1.5. Of course this isn't equal amongst all economic actors. If you reduce taxes on the 1% (supply-side), in a recession when they don't have good investment opportunities, they put it back into savings. Normal people, i.e. the 99% spend that money, boosting demand.

            You don't want to stimulate the economy during boom times (ahem, George Bush tax cuts), as that risks over-stimulating the economy, leading to bubbles and/or a wage-price spiral.

            Economists estimate that the stimulus package passed by Congress in 2009 was less than 50% of what was needed given the demand hole caused by the financial meltdown and housing bust.

    2. That was disturbing. But now that ordinary people know about it via this story, I suspect there's a great day coming for some of these creeps. Won't they be surprised. 

  6. The Senate race between Ken Buck and Udall is tightening.  The Republicans have launched a counter attack in the war on women.  I think that Democrats should pay attention.  This is how I see it:

    1) Two weeks ago, Huckabee fired the first shot when he accused the Democrats of casting women as "being incapable of controlling their libidos and dependent on "Uncle Sugar" to pay for their birth control."  Was there an outrage from dems on the comment……not really.  

    2) Rand Paul was on a Sunday talk show the next day  to talk about Huckabee's remark.  But, he did not address Huckabee, at all, rather he launched the main counterattack and that is to revisit Bill Clinton's sexual behavior.  Paul charged, rightly so, that Clinton  sexually exploited a subordinate, Monica L, which is cause for legal action and that this pattern of behavior dominated Clinton's political life and was tolerated by Hillary. More importantly, Democratic women supported Clinton because he had supported reproductive choice.  So the conclusion is that the Democrats are the ones waging  a "war on women", with the approval and help of Democratic women.

    3) The Republican politicans are fully engaged now with this strategy.  Male Republicans are talking about the women in their family and highlighting how supportive they find their men.

    4) Buck is emphasizing his record on prosecuting domestic violence and how this is protecting women.

     

    1. dwyer,

      There was democratic outrage about huckabee's "libido" remark. It's just that most people don't take him seriously, anyway.

      I don't think that Rand Paul will get much traction against Hillary by emphasizing her husband's unfaithfulness. The only fallout she's gotten so far has been sympathy and admiration for "standing by her man". The rabid 25-30% base, which has always hated the Clintons and believed any evil of them, loves Paul's attack, but they're never going to vote for any Democrat, anyway.

      I understand that you're highlighting Republican strategery as you see it; and I agree; however, it's weak sauce. It shows their desperation, and sensible voters, female and male, aren't buying it.  The base, personified on this forum by our smelly friend, slathers it on their red meat and gobbles it up.

       

      1. Agreed.

        So you base your strategy attacking First Lady/Senator from New York/ Secretary of State Clinton on "It's her fault her husband cheated on her back in the '90's. She must have done something to make him do that".

        51% of the registered voters in these United States are female. The days where the victim was the cause are in the rear view. Even republican women (I've never figured out why women still vote republican) know that con.

        Good luck with that, rand.

        Oh. Concur on our "smelly friend". I saw he ran another "death by ObamaCare" grift yesterday. If this is the new angle, it just ain't gonna get it. Too easy to google. 

        1. Update on the "death by obamcare" deal: There really was a death, that is Doug and Melanie Graham's sister passed away Feb 1.  She died in Virginia, though, which does have an ACA exchange with all of the usual options. for coverage from bronze (high deductible, low-cost) plans, to gold (high cost low deductible, low copay) plans.

          Virginia opted not to do medicaid expansion until July 2014.  If in fact the couple needed to replace insurance coverage, there were many state agencies able and willing to help them navigate and replace their coverage. From the site linked above:

          Virginia’s exchange is run by HHS, with nine insurers offering a total of 105 different plans.  The competition among carriers means that rates are lower than the national average:  Across all ages, the average lowest cost bronze plan is $237/month, compared with $249 nationally.  Plans in the exchange are sold by Optima Health, Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, CoventryOne, CareFirst BlueChoice, Inc. Innovation Health Insurance Company, CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield, Kaiser Permanente, Aetna and Anthem Health Plans of Virginia.

           The couple lives in a huge house in an upscale neighborhood, and the man of the house is retired, so his healthcare would come through Medicare, anyway. It's hard to see why financial hardship would have precluded them signing up for a plan, IF their plan was in fact "cancelled". In Colorado, we know that less than 8% of insurance plans were actually cancelled – most offered an option to immediately renew for a better plan.

          If they didn't sign up for a better plan, and she procrastinated on taking care of her health condition, or the family simply didn't want anything to do with "Obamacare" because of their conservative beleifs, those were their choices. Because of the ACA, her pre-existing health condition would not have limited her insurance options anymore.

          In this case, the sister's choice had a tragic outcome – but it's just right wing spin to say that "Obamacare" killed her.

           

          1. Thanks for the more complete story. This one would seem to be a matter of  free personal choices and judgements, something the GOTP is the first to insist we have the right to make on our own and from which no "nanny state" should take the role of protecting us. It's sad that this woman made faulty choices with tragic consequences but it isn't a case of anyone being killed by ACA. Not by any stretch. 

          2. Don't assume that because he is retired, he has Medicare.  I retired at 62.  I'm not yet eligible for Medicare.  That's why ACA is such a Godsend (if people actually use it).  Who wants to insure a 64-year-old at any cost?

          3. Thanks for the update and the honesty.

            So we know there was a sister who died.

            The article did not state where the sister lived, but assume it is in Virginia.

            Is there any "evidence" she did not have a health policy that was cancelled on December 31st due to Obamacare?

            Is there any "evidence"  other than they were not able to secure a policy with all of the website challenges until they got one with an effective date in early February?

            Is there anything to suggest that she did not try to tough it out until the insurance kicked in and unfortunately she died trying?

            Seems to me that was the gist of the story.  Seems to me that there has been a whole lot of chatter and name calling (not by you) which now seems rather unfounded.

              1. By Doug Graham

                This Wednesday, my little sister, Julie, will be buried. She died because she delayed seeking health care for what turned out to be a catastrophic condition after her private health insurance policy was cancelled because of Obamacare.  As she waited for a new Obamacare-approved policy to kick in, her condition deteriorated to the point that it was too late.

                Julie, her husband, and four children were covered by a medical plan they liked, and had been promised they could keep by President Obama.  But like so many others in this country, her family’s private health care policy was cancelled because of the Affordable Care Act.  So my sister and her family struggled through the expensive and incompetently designed Obamacare website to find a new policy.   Unfortunately, while they waited for their new Obama-approved healthcare plan to finally kick in, my little sister fell ill.  

                What is the basis for disputing the story?

                Read more about it on Colorado Peak Politics. 

                http://coloradopeakpolitics.com/2014/02/14/obamacare-kills-grieving-brother-recounts-death-of-sister-who-lost-health-insurance/

                1. ALL Health Insurance policies are cancelled every year as the insurance companies are constantly changing minor or major details about the coverage. If we work for a company with health benefits, the HR dept takes care of the renewal so we don't think of them as cancelled, we just get the change notice each year during the open-enrollment period. 

                  It is very cool that Obamacare extends the guarantee of insurance to millions of people, but they now have to navigate the enrollment period themselves. Obviously people can be confused when doing this for the first time, which is the idea behind navigators.

                  There are two, easy-to-remember numbers about Obamacare:

                  (1) As of today 10 million people now have insurance who didn't last year! Yaay!!

                  (2) 5 million people were prevented from getting inurance in Republican states that refused to expand medicaid. Boo!!

                    1. I guess Rick Santorum was right.  No wonder he's the Colorado GOP's fav.  If only it weren't for equality then more people would surf to CPP.  

                    2. I don't like goatse.cx but I'll go there to watch the video of a lawyer pushing a Bitcoin alternative than to read right-wing crap from CPP.

                       

              2. Anger and seeking someone to blame are common reactions to the death of a family member. What's uncommon, weird, and repugnant, is to use that death to further a conservative cause, post it on sixteen different blogs including that of a national TV/radio media star, for a specific political purpose, i.e., attacking the Affordable Care Act. I still find that disgusting.

                No, there's no evidence either way on whether the ACA was a factor,  although I've proved in my earlier post today that the family could have certainly accessed appropriate health care through the Exchange, had they chosen to do so.

                It's just a funny thing that the family is so insistent on sharing this story on right wing blogs, yet so reluctant to do the normal grieving family things: have a memorial service, post a death  announcement in the local news outlets,  have an online "guest book" to sign for mourners. That disparity is suspicious.

                There are grieving family members, adult children, and at least one who is probably under 18. I'm going to respect their privacy by not posting anymore on this story. Anyone who is really curious about names and locations can follow the same tracks I did, starting with the patriarch, General Daniel Graham of "Star Wars" fame. http://nyti.ms/1jJ9g7h

                 

                1. I personally like the take at Colorado Peak Politics:

                  Sen. Udall and his cronies in the Senate played political games with people’s healthcare, lied about it, and people died.  When are we, as a nation, going to say enough is enough?

                   

        2. @rocco…

          I don't any strategy; I am just reporting what the repubs are doing….I don't think this is about Hillary…it is about Clinton….his behavior was awful.  Dems should just agree that Clinton's behavior was wrong…but the repubs are confusing private behavior with public policy….There is a good argument to make and to neutralize the repub approach…But dems don't have a response…just the same old same old.

      2. The biggest problem on the Dem side, is that our side doesn't vote except in a presidential year.  Motivating the base should be our main priority, however frustrating it can be.

        1. And, fortunately, that seems to be where our main PAC is headed. People complained that the Democrats' biggest PAC was sitting out the off-season election for campaigning. But the other half of that article was that they were instead focusing on GOTV, registration, and driving the base out to vote on an off-year, rather than spending money on ads.

          1. The dems are absolutely committed to a data driven model.  It worked in Colorado in 2004.  It worked nationally for Obama in 2008 and 2012.  Maybe it will work in 2014…..but the assumption is that the democratic base is still there and solid……there are a lot of angry young people out there…

      3. mj55,

        I disagree.  I think that attention should be paid.  I think that this strategy is important in terms of the Buck-Udall race.  i have heard the "talking heads on MSNBC"…the only place one can hear Democratic voices at all….making fun of the repubs having to go  back to the 90s….   Meantime, it is becoming clear that the Democratic party is in danger of losing the Senate.  Ha ha??

        One of the patterns that Democrats have to change, is the "delayed response."  It happened in Wisconsin when the teachers and their allies staged a recall immediately after Walker was elected…..the organization should have been BEFORE, not after.  Ditto for what happened in Jefferson County county.

        The most important month in the 2014 election cycle is June.  That is when the Supreme Court decisions will come down on the contraception mandate and the constitutionality of bans on gay marriage.  I hope that the dems are prepared to fight whatever the outcomes are.  Now is the time to pay attention, not July…

        1. I agree that Democrats can't afford to let Buck rehabilitate his image. But there is some time here, and the original evidence isn't going away. There's a strategic timing involved, too. The time to remind voters that Buck really does have a problem with women at times is whenever it hurts his campaign the most. That might be now as we move toward the primaries, or it might be during the general election campaign. I don't know.

          But on the more general Republican attempt to fight back against the "war on women" image – I see this as similar to Republican attempts to reform their image re: Latinos and the black population. They can make claims, but so long as they have candidates out there putting forth the true Republican image (i.e. against ALL abortions, with wild ideas of the power of womens' bodies, and in favor of women returning to the home to be subservient to the men that should control them), they won't really win that war.

          1. Rand Paul trying to resurrect Lewinsky as a slur against Hillary may help him fend off Canadian Fauxblusterer Ted Cruz and his lil sidekick Mikey Lee in the Clown Car Caucus, but its damaging in the General.  

             

            1. It is not just Rand Paul….it is the echo chamber.  It is sounding throughout the republican corridors….and the point is..what Clinton did was reprehensivable and women can relate to that.

               

              2. I predict that this will turn in to a negative for anyone that uses it. Hillary is still the victim to the women Rand is trying to woo, and throwing the scandal back to current topics will only hurt those attempting to dredge it up.

                1. Agree. Not only is this particular scandal no reflection on HRC but HRC has already weathered all the now long ago Clinton scandals and successfully come through them. Only the mostdedicated Clinton haters have the slightest interest in anything older than Benghazi and the right hasn't even been very successful in getting much lasting traction out of that one, despite the efforts of their own cable network and army of radio hosts. 

              4. what Clinton did

                What BILL Clinton did…not Hillary. I cannot fathom how this could be construed as a negative for Hillary in ANY way.

                Go Rand! Don't let her get away with her husbands' infidelity!!

                The only damage done here is to Rand Paul and anyone else stupid enough to think this is important in any way.

                1. @exl and DC

                  This is not about Hillary….this is about a counter to the war on women.  It is not just Rand Paul….that is the point…..it is now a repub talking point…Democrats supported Bill Clinton when he was sexually exploiting a young subordinate…….that's it.

                  It does resonate with women…particularly, IMHO, young women who may not have be paying attention 18 years ago..  

                  I said ABSOLUTELY nothing about blaming Hillary…just that she "tolerated it"…..and the other point is that democratic women at the time did not

                  disassociate from Clinton or condemm what he did.

                    1. I haven't heard that; although it certainly may be on the agenda…I have just heard that Clinton sexually exploited a young subordinate…which is true.

                       

                  2. I did.Lots of my friends did. Why do you think you know what everybody thinks and everybody in any given group thinks exactly the same thing? 

                    I've always and openly blamed Bill for being a moron where his zipper is concerned, especially since he knew Republicans were desperately looking for anything they could possibly use to bring him down and scandal after scandal had failed. I was furious at him for being so stupid and sloppy as to carry on with a 20 year old intern and think he could throw her under the bus with no consequences. 

                    What's more, If he hadn't been such a reckless arrogant creep Gore could have sailed to victory promising a continuation of all that Clinton peace and prosperity. Instead he went through all sorts of contortions distancing himself from the unsavory side of ol' Bill. 

                    And yes when a President starts accepting BJs from a young intern who works for him and is naturally dazzled by him that's creepy. Why couldn't he find a nice grown up, sophisticated, discreet mistress? Probably because "suck on this" wouldn't have attracted anyone like that.  

                    Lots of Dem women were furious at Bill at the time. You have a very tiresome habit of making assumptions and then stretching them into generalizations about all Dems, all progressives, all whatever. I wasn't alone in feeling that, while it was entirely true that that there was right wing conspiracy to find a away to destroy the Clinton's it's also true he needlessly handed them that one on a silver platter.

                    Many of us also were none too thrilled with HRC and her willingness to endure any amount of public humiliation for the sake of her political aspirations which would have been nonexistent if she hadn't married an stayed married to Bill. I mean a Hilary Smith, no matter how brilliant and accomplished, was never going to be elected to the Senate with no past experience in elected office in a state she'd never lived in on the way to a serious quest for the presidency. 

                    At the time she became Senator I saw her as no more a feminist icon than Eva Peron who, like her, came to high office the old fashioned way. Via marriage. That was a pretty much why she didn't appeal to me at all back in 2008. I doubt that most of those who were big HRC fans and did consider her a feminist icon seriously consider the Clintons to be paragons of squeaky clean ethics and virtue. 

                    We aren't all so simple minded as to believe that any pol is ever going to be mistaken for Mother Teresa. Most of us are fully aware of all the settings between 0 and 11. For simple mindedness, stick with your favorite medium, rightie radio. Don't project it to all Dems.

    1. Republicans in the Kansas Senate aren't having it; they know that it's a Constitutional nightmare waiting to happen, and a money sink for their state if it passes.

      But you're right; if Republicans didn't have to worry about things like Constitutions and voter outrage… This is the voice of today's real Republican Party, absent the restraints of society.

      1. And, Rand Paul, who is rising like a helium balloon in the repub presidential race, with the disappearance of Christie, has a far more nuanced and more dangerous position.  He argues that government, at all levels, should be prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, religious, whatever; HOWEVER, private property owners should NOT be prohibited from discriminating based on whatever criteria they chose.  Paul wants to limit the public accommodation laws mandated by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment……that argument is the one that boyles etc is making in terms of the bakery guy…..it has legs….because people do not realize the real implication of that position….and it is one of these "freedom" things.

         

        2. Rand's argument isn't completely without merit. There is a balance to be struck between private action and public accomodation, and in this country at least we have a reasonably hands-off legal tradition in that regard.

          But let's face it – we have a rapidly growing trend of acceptance of gay rights. Republicans would be wise to understand that such a trend will cover worker's rights, rights at the pharmacy, and rights in front of the county clerk or DMV counter. Rand is anti-gay; it's contrary to his image as a Libertarian, and it means he'll have a hard time properly threading the needle to make a convincing case.

          1. Like Rand, most of those who call themselves Libertarian these days are nothing of the kind. If they were they would be pro-choice in all areas of our personal lives.

          2. The KS legisaltion allows public officals (not only provate entities) to deny services to folks that violate their faith, like someone coming to DMV to renew a registration wearing a cotton-poly shirt, or having shaved.  ABOMINATIONS!  

            1. CT, this is more likely to come into play with a transperson coming to the DMV with a name and/or gender change, or a Kansan who marries a same-gender spouse in Iowa and requests a name change in Kansas. When the DMV worker refuses to make the change on the person's driver's licence, Kansas will get sued and lose. Nice to know the state is flush enough to waste all of that money fighting losing battles.

          3. @PR  RE: this statement

            Rand's argument isn't completely without merit.

            WHAT?  Rand has been saying this for years and it is part of the long standing campaign to reduce the power of the 14th amendment and return power to the states….it is the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment that got rid of all the JIm Crow laws….and is the basis for the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 an 5…..

            When I first heard Rand talking is was when he was running for the Senate the first time and this dicussion about property rights was in reference to the Civil Rights legislation…that he had "reservations" about because it could intrude on private property rights…Do you agree with him?

             

            The gay rights argument is late to the game and is not a part of federal anti-discrimination or public accomodation law.  Rather, states may regulate the isue of gay rights…..although gays are protected in their private lives by the constitution….a recent development.

  10. EYORE ALERT

    GOP talking points for hand wringing Dems: 

    1) Republicans cannot be racist because Lincoln freed the slaves and the late-Sen Byrd was once in the KKK as a youth way back when.  The African-American vote is lost!

    2) Republicans cannot be waging a war on women because a powerful Democratic president had an affair with an intern.  The young women's vote is lost.

    Dispair. Doom. 

     

    1. CT Everything is great for the Polsters.  

      I think Nancy will be back running the House in just a few month's time.  

      Those folks who lost their insurance, not a problem.

      Those people who feel lied to, that was just a misunderstand.

      What is a lie or two between us Dems?

      Happy, happy, joy, joy.

  13. Noose Tied on Ole Miss Integration Statue

    The FBI on Tuesday was helping investigate who tied a noose around the neck of a University of Mississippi statue of James Meredith, who, in 1962, became the first black student to enroll in the then all-white Southern college.

    University police on Sunday morning found the rope noose and, on the statue's face, a pre-2003 Georgia state flag with a Confederate battle symbol, said campus police Chief Calvin Sellers. Two men were seen near the statue early Sunday and investigators were looking at surveillance footage.

  14. So when Republicans pick their smelly trolls, is it cowardly toady yes-men, totally ignorant fools, or tools devoid integrity that they favor?  Or do they hope for the trifecta?

    1. I dunno, CT… this one seems to be obsessed with Udall (who he'd connect to the Lindbergh kidnapping, if he could); all the other right wing crap seems sort of phoned in…perhaps he's just a BuckBoy?

      1. Well that is the marquee race that the GOP can have some hope in securing.  I mean all the safe money is on Hick, Coffman is vulnerable, but otherwise the Senate race is the one to play on from what I can tell.  As far as phoning it in, I guess one could say this bridge/basement dweller is at least trying, it just has very poor skills, no talent, the IQ or a stone, and the dispostion of a coward… time will tell.  Maybe it has a shelf life through early November?  

  15. Followed a link about  what the CBO said about raising minimum wage.  

    President Obama’s proposal to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would cost 500,000 jobs in 2016, according to a report released Tuesday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

    The report also found hiking the wage from $7.25 per hour would raise income for about 16.5 million workers by $31 billion, potentially pulling nearly 1 million people out of poverty.

    The White House and economic groups on the left immediately pushed back at the CBO’s conclusions on jobs even as they hailed the findings on poverty, saying its conclusions on jobs ran counter to other research.

    “CBO’s estimates of the impact of raising the minimum wage on employment does not reflect the current consensus view of economists,” Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Jason Furman wrote in a blog post. “The bulk of academic studies, have concluded that the effects on employment of minimum wage increases in the range now under consideration are likely to be small to nonexistent.”

    Given its findings on poverty alleviation, Furman told reporters the CBO report was an overall positive for the White House.

    “Sometimes you have to have a respectful disagreement among economists,” Furman said in a conference call. “I think a lot of economists who have looked at [the] literature would summarize it differently than CBO has done here.”

    Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/economy/198605-cbo-minimum-wage#ixzz2tkMubLZs 
    Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

  16. Some sources of studies showing what actually has happened when minimum wage has been increased as opposed to what some, including the CBO, project will happen. I think it's safe to say stuff that really has happened should carry more weight than predictions. You know. Like with weather. It was predicted to be over 60 this past Saturday in my neck of the woods. That doesn't mean it was. Hint. It wasn't. Also I'm pretty sure Business Insider isn't a socialist publication.

    http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/job-loss

     

    http://www.businessforafairminimumwage.org/news/00135/research-shows-minimum-wage-increases-do-not-cause-job-loss

     

    http://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp150/

     

    http://www.businessinsider.com/minimum-wage-increase-job-loss-unemployment-workers-2013-2

     

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

62 readers online now

Newsletter

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