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) J. Sonnenberg

(R) Ted Harvey

20%↑

15%↑

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Doug Bruce

20%

20%

20%

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%↑

40%↑

20%↑

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
July 31, 2014 07:06 AM UTC

Thursday Open Thread

  • 73 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

"Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive themselves."

–Eric Hoffer

Comments

73 thoughts on “Thursday Open Thread

      1. excellent. I will be commenting appropriately and with passion about clean air and clean energy. 

        Maybe The Librarian (sic) will post a cartoon about how stooopid it is to regulate coal and how the Koch Brothers should be President of U.S.Coal and how their first Executive Order will eliminate the EPA.

        1. Zapp,

          So assume we cut the use of Coal in the US.  

          The coal is then sent to other countries with more lax environmental standards and burned there.

          Other than some left-wing nuts and berries types feel better about themselves, what has this accomplished?

          Is global warming really contained by a nation's borders?

          Germany has added five coal power plants to replace nuclear plants in the last 5 years.  More are in the planning stage.  Half the coal burned comes from the US.  Last year coal exports from the US exceeded $11 billion. That number is only going up.

          Germany has reasonable environmental standards, but its emissions of CO2 grew last year.  Coal exports to Europe have doubled since 2008.  We also export coal to India, China, South Korea and other places with lesser environmental standards.

          Seems to me that we are not addressing the problem.

           

            1. Of course pollution is not contained within a nation's borders, anymore than it is in a state's, which is why we need strong national air quality and carbon regulations.  Thanks for making the point for us troll, and please clean up your mess before you scamper off to hide again.  

            2. MB, This is from the AP:

              Of the top five countries receiving power plant-grade coal from the U.S. in 2013, four were in Europe: the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Italy and Germany. All have seen their coal imports more than double from the U.S. since 2008.

              German environmental officials say the reliance on coal-fired electricity will make it hard for the country to meet its climate-protection goals. Activists partly blame the U.S.

              "This is a classic case of political greenwashing," said Dirk Jansen, a spokesman for BUND, one of Germany's most influential environmental advocacy organizations. "Obama pretties up his own climate balance, but it doesn't help the global climate at all if Obama's carbon dioxide is coming out of chimneys in Germany."

              http://bigstory.ap.org/article/not-my-backyard-us-sending-dirty-coal-abroad

               

              1. So suddenly you're an environmentalist upset about our coal exports contributing to pollution?  You're going to hurt yourself with all that pretzel twisting.

                1. I am not upset about coal exports.

                  But all of the contortions about how this solves a problem are silly.  It only changes the location of where the CO2 enters the atmosphere.

                  Real change require pain, for which there is no collective appetite.

                  1. "We must not lead in America!  We must follow Europe and China!  If they do it first, maybe then we can get around to it.  Since when did American know how led the world?  If ChiComms lead maybe America can follow!" -AC and its ilk

              2. Their imports have doubled from the US, which means they have been halved from somewhere else.  That doesn't mean their coal-fired generation has doubled.  In fact, Germany is on target to hit 50% renewables in this decade.  Why is arthimetic so hard for you? 

                The global coal industry is in both collapse and denial.  They can't win the economic argument – and anyone with more than two firing neurons knows that.  Am I happy we 're exporting US coal?  No.  In fact, the Bureau of Land management, just yesterday, conducted a lease auction for the Spruce Stomp reserves near Paoni.  Yes, why'll your ilk are screaiming about Obummer and the EPA terrorists, our government is literally giving this shit (dinosaur poop) away to your pals for export. . 

                  1. Thanks for sharing that link, PC.  Yes, their coal numbers are going to momentarily go up – as they needed the baseload generation to fill the gap of decommissioning their nukes.  As a national policy, they intend to keep those plants "in reserve" for national emergencies once their renewable mix eventually replaces the existing coal infrastructure. 

                    The irony of our librarians remark "real change requires pain, for which there is no collective appetite" – he literally just described "Energiwende".  The Germans are quite willing to take the short-term pain to get long-term gain.  And they're now finding out that by embracing the concept of 'pain' – that is is becoming a much shorter experience than they had prepared for.  They are far-surpassing their renewable targets – and in the meantime enjoying some very cheap daytime electrical rates.

                    1. That is a good website, PC.  And for anyone who ever has the opportunity, I would encourage a visit to the German countyside to witness it with your own eyes.  The legislative concept for their feed-in-tariff was originated by farmers in the Bavarian region – our equivalent of the "Tea Party". 

                      They are 'eyes wide open' knowing that, in the short-term, quickly moving away from the potential liability of a nuclear meltdown would have a cost.  The building of coal plants is simply a short-term fix while they quickly move to their renewable destination. 

                      Speaking of nuclear liabilities, the Price Anderson Nuclear Indemnity Act won't be revisited now until 2025 thanks to the 2005 Republican Congress and White House who extended the unfunded liabilities of the nuclear operations upon John Q. Public at that time.  The Germans understand that just one unfortunate accident like Fukishima could cost them more than the entire costs of Energiewende – and they are no longer willing to have to carry that exposure on their national economy's balance sheet.

    1. Newt is apparently a spox for the rightie blogosphere outrage over "Operation Choke Point" (OCP). OCP is a program which aims to shut down banking access for shady third party businesses, such as payday lenders.

      The Colorado connection is that Pueblo Freedom and Rights claims to have had their banking access shut down by OCP during the recalls.

      Jennifer Kerns, AFP rightie spox / California Republican party media – chief / The Blaze "branded" contributor, is spreading this far and wide over the rightie blogosphere. Look for OCP to be the next fake "scandal", with PFR prominently displayed as a poor little grass roots effort victimized by Big Gov overreach. 

      I started a diary on this, but I didn't save it somehow, so would have to start again. I almost….almost can sympathize with PFR. 

      What do you all think? Should a government agency limit banking access without public transparency?

       

    2. To his credit, at least Boner's temper tantrums are brought on by pressure from the tea baggers.  Newt's was caused by teething and discovering that he was not the center of attention.

  1. We've wrapped up two days of field hearings for the EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan.  Colorado really stepped to the plate: on day one the supporters outnumbered the deniers almost 5:1; one day two they took another thrashing, being outnumbered 7:1. 

    Here is a great documentary from the Department of Energy's 2014 Biomass conference wrapping up today in DC. It includes three stories about Colorado entrepreneurs: Sara Volz, a high school STEM student in Colorado Springs developed a unique process in the basement of her home to dramatically increase the production of algae for biodiesel. She was the 2013 winner of the Intel Talent Search and is now a freshman at MIT. It also includes CoolPlanet, who is now making biofuel from pine beetle kill – but is capable of producing drop-in gasoline from any plant material. Finally, a nice biogas story from New Belgium Brewery in Fort Collins. (the Colorado legislature passed a bill establishing benefit corporations in the 2013 session.  It's worthy to note that every single Republican legislator in both chambers voted against the bill.)

    Just imagine what would be possible if we unleashed the entirety of the scientific, technologial and entrepreneurial capacity of every American?

  2. @Bowman,

    Thank you very much for this information, both the update on the critically important EPA hearing and the video.  Did you testify?

    1. I testified on Tuesday.  (Great comments by Ross).  I'll post my testimony here as soon as I can type them up.  (I wrote it and submitted at the hearing it in long hand)

      1. Thanks to you, Duke, and Ross for fighting the good fight. The lopsided numbers in favor of EPA regs are encouraging. I'm sorry that I wasn't able to meet up with you all on Tuesday – I'm going up to Denver today. 

        Sounds like biodiesel is almost at the "competitive with gasoline" stage – would it be there, if oil wasn't subsidized/

        1. We had a great meet-up, Mama.  Looking forward to having you join us next time 🙂  Note to our elected officials:  our future doesn't lie at the tip of a drill bit.

        2. U.S. Navy Expects Biofuels to Cost No More Than Conventional Options

          The U.S. Navy's first general call for biofuels for ships and aircraft should result in prices under $3.50 a gallon – comparable to what the military service pays for conventional fuels, according to Dennis McGinn, the Navy's assistant secretary for energy, installations and environment. The U.S. Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), which obtains fuel for military services, recently closed a procurement seeking at least 37 million gallons of drop-in biofuels to blend with F-76 marine diesel and JP-5 jet fuel. The Navy uses F-76 marine diesel to propel ships and JP-5 jet fuel to operate fighter jets and other aircraft based on ships. The procurement marked the first time DLA made biofuels part of a regular call for Navy fuels. DLA called for blends of 10-50% and required the biofuel bids to be cost-competitive with conventional fuels.
           

          1. One of these days the supposed super-patriotic, military supporting right just might start listening to the military on these issues, including the military's message that climate change represents a serious geopolitical security and stability threat that we need to start addressing ASAP? Nah…. That would involve putting the good of all mankind, including their own kids, ahead of short term politics. 

  3. This is just sick:

    Among the items being bought are 120mm mortar rounds and 40mm ammunition for grenade launchers, the official said. Those will come from an arms stockpile the United States keeps in Israel, which is worth more than $1 billion.

    What is that stockpile really "worth"? It's long past time to stop being "the world's policeman" and to stop funding America's Empire and instead fund America's rebirth as a democracy.

    1. What is this excerpt from, Zap? 

      As far as Israel and the US – I agree that the time to stop being Israel's badass big brother is over. Israel is apparently fully capable of protecting itself. As someone with Jewish ancestors who had to emigrate after family businesses, etc,were confiscated, I can sympathize with Israel's surivivalist mindset – but they are going too far.

      Probably, the best chance of ever reaching that mythical "two-state solution" will involve the US stepping back, and Israel having to come to terms with its choices – aptly summarized by Bluecat, I believe – that it can now emulate the Nazis in totally ghettoizing the Palestinians, forcing them to live as a refugee population, or it can step back, stop settling on Palestinian lands, and actually negotiate.

      Having ginormous stockpiles of US weapons on hand will not accelerrate the peace process. 

      1. I've seen this succession of maps elsewhere and have a couple of issues with it…

        1. The black areas in the 1948 map should be labeled Egypt (Gaza) and Jordan (West Bank). Israel took control of those areas in 1967, and turned them over to the Palestinians in 2009(?).

        2. Gien the importance of the Jordan River to Israels water supply, does anybody expect them to hand it over to the Palestinians? Look at how the U.S. treats the Colorado River and Mexico.

        Like all things in the Middle East, it get really complicated really fast when you start looking at the details.

        1. You do know that Israel appropriated most of the water in the first place, part of the whole turning Israel green thing. American Jews , like my family back then, weren't aware of that and one of the American Jewish community's big bragging points was… look at the border. You can see where the green starts proving how superior Israeli ingenuity is. We turned the dessert into orange and grapefruit groves.  

          True, Israel employed superior techniques in all aspects of irrigation and agricultural with their highly educated European born engineers, agricultural experts and such but it also helps when you start out by stealing all the water.

           

          We were fed lots of white hat myths, such as that all those silly Arabs left on their own because they were sure their side would win and they'd be able to return, having defeated the Jews. We were not told that the Arabs of almost entirely Arab Haifa (well 90% of the population of  Palestine was Arab and had been for the better part of 2 thousand years) were forced from their homes with nothing but what they could carry and certainly no compensation for their property at gun point.

           

          Since then Arab land has continually been appropriated with no compensation  and turned over to Jewish settlers. All the comforting pablum was just for American consumption, though. You could always get the truth from the old Israelis, including Moshe Dayan, Golda Meir, Menachim Begin who belonged to the terrorist Irgun, who freely admitted even to the fact that there were massacres of Arabs by Jews in some of the villages to make way for the Jewish state during the war following the partition and establishment of Israel.

           

          Not to suggest the violence was all one sided, not at all, but just that the state of Israel was hardly achieved by a bunch of boy scouts. Their attitude was pretty much of the you have to break some eggs variety and they felt that whatever it took was more than justified by the holocaust.  

          But they realized it had to be prettied up for American consumption. So most of what the American public, especially including American Jews, thinks about how Israel came to be is a fairy tale. 

          1. Yeah, but, hey the European settlers who made Amurica what she is today were a kind, civilized bunch who never appropriated anything bigger than a stick to grow our great country.  We were always kind, gentle, truth-y folks who persuaded the Native Americans to move to the most unarrable land (and were we ever dismayed when we discovered a use for the oil under some of that land) by the sweetness of our disposition alone.

        2. Actually, there was envisioned in the 1947 plan a Palestinian authority to administer the lands. After the 1948 war, Egypt largely assumed the mantle of authority, though nominally they were still under a separate legal authority.

          1. Also, the inconvenient fact is that the colonial world that existed then doesn't any more. Those who would refuse to recognize the right of Britain to make any of the deals with any of the players that resulted in, not only the formation of Israel but the arbitrary carving up of the whole region without reference to the desires or allegiances of the indigenous people, do have a point.  That's the original sin we're dealing with from Israel to Iraq and points in between and beyond. It was all imposed or negotiated by conquering foreigners.

      2. Congratulations on going Godwin so early in the morning!

        Whatever legitimate criticisms of Israel exist (and they do), if they wanted to push the Palestinians into Egypt and Jordan, or kill every last one of them, they could, but haven't, making Nazi comparisons hyperbolic and false, nevermind counter-productive to rational debate.

        From Israel's creation a two-state solution was on the table, and immediately rejected by the Arabs, and continuously so by Hamas.  Due to the Holocaust, millenia of ostracism and progroms,  and continuing European Anti-Semitism, Jews and Israelis feel that having a state which serves as a refuge is their only guarantee of safety.  When your counterpart is committed to your destruction, and teaches its children genocidal goals, an agressive stance is expected, if not strategically productive in the long term.

         

        1. DP, I carefully said "ghettoize" and "suppress a refugee population", not "exterminate" or "genocide". Early stages of the third reich only ghettoized and suppressed, and confiscated land and assets.  The historical comparisons are accurate, if uncomfortable. 

          I agree that Hamas must back away from "Israel has no right to exist", and at least some of its leaders have done so. My point is that US demagoguery and material support for Israel as if Israel's conduct has been beyond reproach also undermines rational discussion and hopes for Mideast peace.

          Most of the right wing extremists who tear upl about Israel these days are promoting an evangelist Christian vision of end times when Israel controls all of that area. Then they see Jesus returning, everybody gets "saved" or goes to hell, (including Jews),rapture ensues, yada yada.

          These are the spiritual ancestors of the people who made my mother and her parents identify themselves as "Hebrew" on the ship manifest when they came over from Austria, and who turned away thousands of Jewish refugees as the "garbage people". 

          1. Just read your link re:Hamas and Israel's right to exist; it's FOUR YEARS OLD!!! 

            How about this more recent one:

            "We will not recognize any agreements at the expense of our land, rights and religious sites," Asharq al-Awsat quoted Hamas officials on Sunday. "Palestine — the whole of Palestine from the [Mediterranean] sea to the [Jordan] river [i.e., Israel] — is the property Palestinian people and our nation, and no usurper has any right to a speck of dust of its territory."

            To make your original point you could have substituted "emulate the US" (re:Native Americans) and been just as correct but it wouldn't have had the same rhetorical zing, would it?  Weak sauce.

            1. In a confrontation that's been going on since some time back before Jesus and Adam were riding live pterodactyls, does the vintage of any one of the combatant's quotations really matter ?? 

              1. When there's been zero movement toward implementation of such a foundational concession in the time since it was issued, I think it matters.

              1. That one's not valid.  Africans had no right to vote in South Africa.

                Hitler liked dogs and was a vegetarian.  No one remembers him for those things.  There's one thing people think of when you raise that specter, and unless you're talking about actual genocide, you're only mentioning it for the sake of being inflammatory.

                You've got enough facts on your side, you don't have to be intentionally offensive.

                1. Without a two state solution the Palestinians remain within the borders of a single state in a territory over which Israel has ultimate control and in which they have no vote. There's a big difference between the limited autonomy they have and the true sovereignty they will have only with a state of their own, not subject to Israeli authority, something Bibi has recently denied can ever be allowed to happen west of the Jordan, which means a two state solution isn't really on the table. 

                  Palestinians will soon be a majority within the borders of that single state of Israel with a vote only in the areas in which they are allowed limited autonomy, not in the state which holds ultimate control over them.  Call it what you want, it's pretty close to apartheid and there's no way Israel can remain a Jewish state without it in the absence of the establishment of a completely sovereign Palestinian state.

                  And BTW, there are also Arab citizens of Israel and, while they vote and have some representation, they don't enjoy exactly the same rights as Jewish citizens. So you essentially have a lesser level of citizenship for some citizens. Also necessary in maintaining Israel as an ethnically Jewish state. 

                  You can't very well maintain a state for a particular group, without discriminating. There's no way around that. Many may think that's justified in the service of maintaining a Jewish homeland but there's no sense denying that it is what it is.

                  1. All well and true.  I'm more making a meta argument about terms of debate.  Using Naziism and the Holocaust against Jews is uniquely offensive and unnecesarily inflammatory when there's enough factual information to make a strong argument.

                    Only genocide should be compared to genocide, and that's not what's going on. 

                    1. And my point is that in the absence of massive ethnic cleansing and/or genocide, there is zero chance for Israel's long term survival as a Jewish state if a sovereign Palestinian state is off the table because of simple demographic arithmetic. The window is closing and I'm having trouble working up the old urgent concern about it that I used to feel. 

                      I love living in a country where, though it's been imperfectly implemented, the ideal we're always working toward is lack of discrimination on racial, ethnic, religious or other grounds and we're getting more of it right more often all the time. I certainly wouldn't want to trade my life as an American who happens to be of Jewish origin for a life as an Israeli. I have to admit that I really don't much like the kind of society it has to be.

                      The Holocaust can't justify everything Israel does forever, especially since the Palestinian people didn't have a damn thing to do with it.

                      If those responsible, the people of Germany who gave us Hitler and the Holocaust, had been justifiably forced to cede a nice little chunk of their country for a Jewish homeland after WWII, we could have had a nice little Jewish Switzerland type nation instead of the mess we've got now on a thousand percent more solid moral ground.  The citizens of said country would probably be visiting Palestine as tourists, investing, preserving antiquities important to everyone, bringing in lots of money to everyone's benefit.

                      As far as the ancient homeland justification goes, if everybody in Europe got to return to where their ancestors lived two thousand years ago and more, hardly anybody would get to stay put except the Basques and they don't even have their own country. Only American Indians would get to stay here and try to figure out where their tribe lived originally. So that one's pretty hard to buy.

                      And those are the only two possible justifications for the displacement of the people who have made up the overwhelming majority of the population of Palestine for close to two thousand years: The Holocaust, not their doing, and ancient religious writings, not particularly noted for historical accuracy. 

                      Much as it pains me, and it does, deeply, I have to admit to myself that, were I not Jewish, I wouldn't have the slightest difficulty knowing where I stood on either of those as justifications for the present hellish state of affairs. I'm sick of the whole damn thing.

        2. As far as that two state solution, actions speak louder than words and the actions of Netanyahu's government have always been to couple foot dragging with settlement expansion and more land confiscation to create facts on the ground that would make any viable Palestinian state impossible. Now we have words to go with the actions. Anyone who ever thought the Netenyahu government ever had any real intention of negotiating a real two state solution resulting in a sovereign Palestinian state is delusional. Sure, Hamas doesn't support two state either because they don't recognize Israel's right to exist but to say it's all on the Palestinians while Israel has been working toward a two state solution in good faith is a joke.  Hamas is, in Bibi's delusional mind, his best ally in his dogged determination to have it all. He never let's an opportunity go by to humiliate more moderate leaders because he doesn't want moderation.

          Netanyahu told a press conference on July 11 that “there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan”. 

           

          http://mg.co.za/article/2014-07-28-00-sa-jewish-organisations-position-on-gaza-brought-into-question

           

          Pretty simple. If the west bank is non-negotiable as part of a truly sovereign Palesinian state, not under Israeli control, a two state solution is a non-starter and everybody knows it. Netanyahu and the righties in control have been pulling everyone's chain all these years, pretending to negotiate in the hopes that somehow, they'll be able to run out the clock.  Who knows what delusional hopes they entertain for their policy but they are no less and probably more delusional than Palestinians who dream of taking all of Palestine back. After all, if Bibi and friends get their wish for a single state it will soon be one with a Palestinian non-citizen majority within its borders and we all know how that story ends in the 21st century world.

  4. FOR REPUBLICAN CONSERVATIONISTS………………

    2014 is the anniversary of two milestones by Republicans (along with the occasional Democrat   😉   ).    150 years since President Lincoln set aside land in California that eventually became Yosemite National Park. 50 years since the passage of the Wilderness Act by a strong, bipartisan, majority. In the 50 years since, the president who signed more wilderness bills into law than any other is Ronald Reagan.

    Regards,   C.H.B.    

    1. Sshhhh! Pointing out what St. Reagan actually did as opposed to what today's righties believe he did is cruel. Like telling 4 year olds there is no Santa.  Reagan couldn't possibly have been in league with dirty tree huggers! 

      Years ago I tried to explain to the nitwit who is now my HD38 Rep (Conti) that taxes were actually quite low compared to the past and that they were much higher under Reagan when she tried to tell me that our biggest problem was skyrocketing taxes. Also told her that Reagan himself had raised taxes. You should have seen her face. She stalwartly refused to believe it. I sent her links to facty stuff on the intertubes. She never got back to me. To be fair, she might not have been able to figure out how. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

  5. Republicans abruptly pull immigration bill and urge Obama to do pretty much what they tell us he should be sued and/or impeached over….  taking independent executive action. This from Huffpost site:

    WASHINGTON — The House abruptly removed a bill from its schedule that would provide $659 million in funding to address the ongoing border crisis, after initially planning to vote on the measure Thursday afternoon.  

    The bill had significant opposition from Democrats, but GOP leadership decided to add a separate vote, if the first were to pass, on a measure meant to bring on conservative support: ending a key Obama policy that allows undocumented young people in the U.S. for years to remain in the country. 

    That move wasn't enough to get to 218 votes. The GOP leadership — House Speaker John Boehner (Ohio), Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), Majority Whip Steve Scalise (La.), and Conference Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.) — issued a statement saying the House "will continue to work on solutions to the border crisis and other challenges facing our country."

    "This situation shows the intense concern within our conference –- and among the American people -– about the need to ensure the security of our borders and the president’s refusal to faithfully execute our laws," they said. "There are numerous steps the president can and should be taking right now, without the need for congressional action, to secure our borders and ensure these children are returned swiftly and safely to their countries."

    That House Republicans said the president should act alone to deal with the crisis is significant given their opposition to many of his previous executive actions.  (my emphasis) The House GOP voted on Wednesday to authorize a lawsuit against Obama for his actions to enforce Obamacare. Obama has said he needs additional funding from Congress to address the influx of unaccompanied minors.

  6. Sad news for Moddy and AC:

    HCA Holdings Inc. (HCA), the largest for-profit hospital chain, yesterday raised its forecast and reported a 6.6 percent drop in uninsured patients at its 165 hospitals, a reduction that grows to 48 percent in four states that expanded Medicaid, a top initiative of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. WellPoint Inc. (WLP), which made the biggest commitment of any publicly traded insurer to the Obamacare markets, raised its guidance today after handily beating analyst estimates for the quarter on rising membership linked to the overhaul. […]

    “Obamacare’s turned out to be quite good for health-care companies,” said Les Funtleyder, a portfolio manager at Esquared asset management, in a telephone interview.

    LifePoint Hospitals Inc. (LPNT), another for-profit chain, also raised its forecast yesterday while the largest insurer, UnitedHealth Group Inc. (UNH), said earlier this month it added 635,000 people to its Medicaid plans and was expanding into two dozen Obamacare exchanges in 2015, from five this year.

    (from Bloomberg News)

    Damned Obamacare! It's just like the lousy stock market performance.

  7. Interesting factoid. Not making too much of this but just as a comparison between the big R year of 2010 and where we are now.  Today the RCP puts the average generic congressional vote at +2.5 Dem and it's been consistently creeping up for a while.This time in 2010, when Dems really got clobbered by Rs (here in Colorado not so much) it was plus a about +5 R on its way to about +9 R by the end of October. The generic is a very limited indicator but it does indicate something in its limited way.

      1. Agree. But it probably means the big R gains of 2010 aren't on offer. And even then Colorado Rs underperformed to an embarassing degree. It will also be interesting to see if and by how much Dems improve on that 2.5 between now and the end of October.

  8. Under the headline of "is it real, or is it The Onion"….

    GOP Attack Calls Bold Nebraska “Faux Grassroots,” Arm of “Billionaire’s Club”

    Ms. Kleeb has been doing for Nebraska farmers and ranchers what our own Republican elected officials should have been doing but refuse to do. I think it says a lot about the GOP when they take issue with someone who is actually standing up for people’s property rights instead of the interests of multinational corporations.”

    ~Randy Thompson, Republican Nebraska rancher

    What this hyper-partisan report fails to mention is the gigantic Big Oil campaign contributions to its Republican authors. On average, each Republican member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has received $736,650 in contributions from Big Oil and other fossil fuel corporations since 1999.

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

78 readers online now

Newsletter

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