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
April 16, 2014 06:29 AM UTC

Wednesday Open Thread

  • 47 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

"How can people trust the harvest, unless they see it sown?"

–Mary Renault

Tweet
Share

Comments

47 thoughts on “Wednesday Open Thread”

  1. Think the new Sebelius is any better? Think again.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2014/04/14/Marc-Thiessen-Let-Obama-s-Next-HHS-Sec-Explain-Obamacare-Lie-of-the-Year

     

     

    At the Washington Post op-ed writer Marc A. Thiessen wants the President's next nominee for Health and Human Services to explain how Obamacare became the "lie of the year," and he has a good point. The nominee was previously responsible for fact checking Obama's speeches where he repeatedly claimed that we could "keep our doctors."

    With the resignation of embattled HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, President Obama immediately nominated Sylvia Burwell as a replacement. While Burwell has no particular experience in healthcare, she is the head of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), an agency that has intimate knowledge of Obama's budget proposals and policy ideas.

    OMB is responsible for scoring the economic impact of the President’s budget and policy proposals.

    But as Thiessen point out in his April 14 piece, the OMB has another little-known duty: fact checking Obama's speeches.

      1. A stopped clock is right twice a day. The fact that breitbart usually ranges from heavily slanted to outright lies does not mean that in this case they have a valid point. And the fact that Thiessen gives the right a pass on all their lies does not mean we should then give Obama a pass on his lies.

        By any fair measure the "you can keep your plan" was, if not the political lie of the year, was definitely in the top 5. It was almost certainly purposeful (I don't think Obama was so out of it that he didn't know) and it was arguably key to getting the law passed.

        So, do we pretend it's not an issue? If we do, then we're no better than those on the right that pretend problems on their side are not an issue.

        Or do we do ourselves what we're always demanding the right do – admit to the things we did wrong?

  2. Crafting a response to this would be redundant; here's the first comment over at the WP.

    Coming from the guy who helped craft the lies for the Bush administration that dragged us into the disastrous Iraq war, where Hussein supposedly had weapons of mass destruction and we would be greeted as liberators – and 5,000 American deaths later, tens of thousands grieviously wounded, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, trillions of dollars of American taxpayer money, Iran's hand strengthened in the region, our moral standing tainted forever, bin Laden allowed to escape and live for a decade after 9/11 – and this guy has the nerve to talk about lies? He should be shunned in public wherever he goes, yet he has a column in Fred Hiatt's Washington Post. Amazing.

    1. So, attack the messanger and ignore the message?

      That would be one approach.

      An honest approach might be different, like dealing with the message.

      But it is not the only approach.

    1. They don't know him and aren't taking his district inrto consideration. To the national media he is a story because he is someone new to them.

          1. I think you don't understand what that means. It does not mean Udall will get 60% of the vote. It means that if the electen was held 10 times, Udall would win 6 of those times and Gardner the other 4. So Udall will likely win, but Gardner can win.

        2. Nate said Ken Buck would win–70% to 79% chance.  I'd go with you being cranky and probably wrong as well, David.

          Oh, by the way, I wanted to buy some new tech toys for my business and my bank nanny-cammed me.  I am not allowed to spend more than $2500 on tech-y stuff with my debit card. 

          Do you tech people need to work on your reputations? 

          Since I was ordering on line, it took me an hour to convince the bank, that, no, I really did want to buy my new toy.  So they increased my limit enough to cover the three grand–on a one time basis, only.  Weird.

      2. @DC and Sunmusing,

        Do you have two sources?

        1) National media saying Gardner is a winner…other than Fox News-

        2) Colorado polls showing Gardner is trailing Udall more than the margin of error.

        Thanks.

        1. I did read Nate Silver and 538.  DC is right that the chart has Udall at a

          60/40 favorite, but it is not based on local polling, but rather a whole series of probabilities, etc.

          1. I agree…there is a "murmuring" out in the "rest of the country" that Cory is the MAN…I don't puruse the winger/bagger places so I don't know what they are saying…there are those on the "Left" that think Gardner is going to turn Colorado Red…I think it is more "gloom and doom" thinking than a reality…I don't see Gardner as a very good person and his agenda is a winger/bagger agenda…I will work against him…CD3 and Tipton is where I am putting most of my resources to work…

  4. An interesting piece by Eli Stokols on the Local Control Initiative and his thoughts regarding the potential political fallout. 

    “You don’t have to be a Svengali to see this is a slow motion train wreck for Mark Udall and every other Democrat up and down the ballot,” says Josh Penry, a former Republican state lawmaker and gubernatorial candidate now working in the oil and gas industry.

    I'm not sure how Josh comes to the conclusion that poiiticians who supports Local Control, an issue that polls north of 60%, is creating a train wreck.  Despite Congressman Gardner's perpetual mischaracterization of the issue that it's a state-wide ban, it's not.  Just like Amendment 64, which contained opt-out provisions for cities and counties to ban marijuana retail and grow, this initiative puts the power of land use in to the hands of the locals – the absolute best place for those decisions to reside. 

    Yuma County isn't about to institute such a ban (which in and of itself destroys Gardners assertion).  However, it's local planning commission has approved massive cattle and pork facilities – something that wouldn't happen on the Front Range.  I think you get the point.

     

    3. Here's what happens when you exert leadership within the GOP (Not that we'll have to worry about any wholesale change here in the Centennial state anytime soon). Growing a Greener GOP From the Ground Up

      In 2012, ConservAmerica partnered with the German Embassy in DC, the Goethe Institute, and Atlantic Bridge to coordinate a group visit to Germany. The purpose of the visit was to expose conservative legislators from the US to the economic benefits of a clean energy economy. Legislators from conservative states like Utah and South Carolina participated. Sow and you shall reap.

      We (our 25'x'25 initiative) did something very similar almost two years ago, taking 10 conservative REA managers from across the US to Germany (thanks to the support of Colorado's Bohemian Foundation and the Rockfeller Brothers Foundation) to study their incredibly bold and successful 'Energiewende'.  An effort spawned by the uber-conservative farmers of the Bavarian region (politically our Tea-Party / Rand Paul equivalent).  Their premise:  what's more conservative than a framework that lets every individual participate as an energy producer? 

      Although this success is often spun in the Faux News world as a failure, those assertions, the equivalent of shooting fish in a bucket, could be debunked by anyone with more than two firing neurons.  From our very own Rocky Mountain Institute…

    4. Moderatus likes to say that only liberals use the "Alinsky playbook". It's clear that Gardner is trying to polarize the electorate by setting up a "straw man": Making Udall defend a statewide fracking ban, which is not the initiative working its way onto the ballot.

      All Udall has to do is say that he does not support a statewide ban on fracking, but does support the much more modest "Local Control Initiative". I would bet that Mark Udall is quite savvy enough to avoid stepping into Gardner's steaming puddles of frack goo.

      Still waiting to see Hickenlooper make good on his promise to meet with those who support local control – those who heckled and voted down his nomination at the Assembly. 

      While our governor seems quite willing to meet with oil and gas industry representatives anytime, anywhere, he is not quite as accessible to those who must live with air and water and noise contamination, birth defects, earthquakes, etc, – from the effects of fracking up close and personal.

  5. Josh comes to that conclusion because he cannot dissuade himself from engaging in wishful thinking. Josh is delusional.

    Two things from Stokols story I am having trouble buying.

    1. I don't believe the 50,000 employee number.

    2. Hickenlooper didn't convince Encana, Noble, and Anadarko to do anything…the EPA did that.

    1. As near as I can tell from going over the numbers at the U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics, that number probably does not exceed 12, 000…certainly no where near the 50,000 cited by Stokols.

      1. Agreed.  That number is significantly overblown.  I recently came across a jobs data report and buried in their number was even the clerks at the local mini-mart.  Apparently, if we weren't extracting oil and gas in Colorado we'l have to give up our Slurpees and go back to riding horses. 

      2. Numbers are all over the place and the boosters are always using the inflated ones. I have never experienced otherwise.  A CSU study a little while back put it at around 30,000 I think, and that was being fairly generous–counting a number of somewhat indirect subcontractors and such (not all of which is dependent on only oil and gas)–but the industry likes to claim even grander numbers, the Slurpee peddlers and such, often claiming upwards of 100,000.  The silly 'study' from the guy at CU which imagined what might happen in a worse made-up case scenario regarding something that doesn't exist, put the impact of that non-existent event at upwards of 60,000 jobs.  So I say if you're industry pick a number between 50k and 1 gazillion and go for it.  

    2. Duke, do you mean the air quality rules?

      If so, from what I hear, those companies are generally on board with them. IIRC, Noble especailly so. For them, losing methane is losing revenue. It's the wildcatters that are the real problem. Their product is the well or gas field, which they hope to sell to the big guys.. Fixing leaks doesn't bring any additional revenue. 

      According to a friend who testified in the recent hearings, if you fly over the gas fields with an infrared sensor, you can easily see plumes of methane (it's a strong absorber of IR, which is what makes it a potent greenhouse gas). There are few leaks over fields run by the majors, and lots and lots over the fields run by small operators.

      1. Yes..the AQCC rules. As you say, the producing companies benefit from this. They and Hick had to convince the rest of industry to go along. Hick gets no credit.

    1. I suppose you're ignoring or discounting the two terms she served as governor of the sun state( sunflowers, sunstroke, and sons of b….s)She starts as a result of that and her term as insurance commissioner with higher name recognition than almost anyone the repcons can throw out there.Clueless and incompetent characterizes almost the whole konservative klown kar.You, along with almost everyone else seems to forget the rollout of Medicare part D. Kansans, on the whole, might not be the most intellectual of states populations but I'm betting they can see farther than you apparently can.

      1. People mostly remember the most recent. Yes her previous work in Kansas will help. But her time at HHS will hurt – a lot.

        It's like Lindsey Lohan – the fact that she was once a good actress is now largely forgotten. All people think of is the train wreck she is now.

        1. I whole-hearetedly disagree.  People remember her as a 'tough as nails' Governor.  Those in Kansas who want to categorically dismiss her because of the rollout were never going to vote for her anyway.  And that appears to be a shrinking crowd in the Sunflower state.  Juxtaposed against her opponent (yet another old white guy that needs to go home), she's going to look pretty damn good.  And viable.

        3. I bet I have more relatives in Kansas than you do, Dave, and I guarantee you that they would all happily vote for Sibelius.  They may not be typical Kansans (though they were all born and bred there and lived their whole lives there), but she has a loyal following in that state.  They loved her as governor.

    2. I disagree, David.  Sebelius was an incredibly effective Governor.  Go to Pat Roberts Facebook page and peruse his posts – and the responses.  For the large part he's being pelted on his sophmoric, perpetual O-Care positions. The once-popular current Governor Brownback is tanking with the attempted over reaches of his conservative agends. 

      Say what you will about her as HHS Secretary – I would under no circumstances dismiss her as a statewide candidate in Kansas.  Much like Colorado, the KC-Topeka corridor will determine that outcome, not the Hoxie-Atwood crowd.  If she gets out there and touts the successes of the health care refom and is unapologetic in its success in getting the uninsured, insured – she'll win.  Just like any other Dem willing to grow a spine on healthcare.

  7. Just another observation, re:  Eli Stokols

    boyles has been relentless in calling him the "buttboy" or words to that effect for the so-called progressive cause.  Could Stokols possibly be reacting to that kind of criticism? 

    1. Stokols is conservative, but he's generally a good journalist. Boyles calls many people "butt-boys". It's his favorite homoerotic slur. Says much more about Boyles than anything else, and I doubt Stokols gives it a second thought. 

    2. While I disagree with the Eli's premise that if the initiative makes it to the ballot this fall it will have negative impacts on the Senate and Governor's race (that will be determined candidate-by-candidate as to their position on the initiative if it makes it to ballot), I don't disagree with his general premise that when candidates from either party stray from the support of their base there are going to be 'my hair's on fire' moments.  This is one of them.

      And that's the danger of thinking you can safely harbor a viper by taking a political position incongruent with 60% of the Colorado electorate.   

      1. Considering the amount of new money potentially in play around the local control issue, all statewide candidates are going to be groaning since the ad buy oxygen is going to get sucked up by CRED and similar front groups. Falsehoods about a "statewide ban" will be circulated widely enough that candidates will be spending a great deal of energy answering questions about a non-existent issue and being accused of waffling if they give a reasonable, nuanced answer that addresses the real facts.

        On the other hand, with the Hickenlooper at the top of ticket being at best ambivalent, and generally opposed to the concept, local control will be hard to spin as a partisan issue.

  8. I was responding to these two comments, yesterday…I comment and/or report what boyles says….I do NOT take his comments as valid….I do think that he reflects the most far right propaganda….  This is no big deal.

    davebarnes says:

    Tue April 15, 2014 at 11:53 AM MDT

    Where is the polling DATA?
    "Views" are bullshit speculation.
     

    Reply

    – See more at: http://coloradopols.com/diary/56869/republican-insiders-tancredo-beauprez-frontrunners-for-gov-nomination#comments

  9. Pols:

    May be a good idea to put George Leing on the Big Line for CD-2.  He dosen't look like your standard nut-job vanity run of the mill candidate, and he dosen't have a killer stache.  Former chair of the Boulder County R party, attorney, Yale and Georgetown grad.  His chances are slim for sure but he at least looks like a legit candidate.

    My two cents.  Your call of course.

  10. Lynn Bartels is gushing about Hack's first re-election ad in the Spot (at http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2014/04/15/rise-shine-john-hickenlooper/108198/#disqus_thread).

    Hack's ad portrays him as a rather scatterbrained individual with a strong sense of privilege hurried through a meaningless routine by his handler; perhaps there is some truth in it.  Garcia acts not only as Lt. Gov. and Executive Director of the Dept. of Higher Education, apparently, but as the Gov's valet; in the first part, besides telling Hack to get up, he does nothing but goad Hack along with a whistle.  Hack is shown biking to the Capitol, then he is in an office described as "campaign headquarters"; running for re-election, it would seem, from his office in the Capitol while the General Assembly is in session.

    What is the significance, I wonder, of the emphasis on the different habits of Hack and Garcia?  How is it that Hack bikes to the Capitol, but Garcia rides a Harley?  Why is Hack a vegetarian, but Garcia eats large burgers?  Is Hack very fragile, or does Garcia just not care much for others' repose or his own health?  The ad seems to posit a double standard.  Hack's status as some sort of Democratic ascetic having been firmly established, we cut to a traditional appeal to enthusiastic partisans.  This is definitely an ad intended for people already determined to vote for Hack, as opposed to one directed at anyone considering an alternative.

    2. You're over-thinking it. Hick has done very well with silly ads. Showering fully clothed, jumping out of a plane. After being besieged with nasty attack ads featuring sinister music, voters like Hick's ads. They're fun. Since when has substance free been a negative in political advertising. Remember Morning in America? Not much substance there either but it worked like a charm. 

      Whatever you think of Hick, he's going to be reelected and his trademark ads are going to help him.

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

157 readers online now

Newsletter

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