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
November 17, 2014 06:25 AM UTC

Monday Open Thread

  • 42 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

"Farce treats the improbable as probable, the impossible as possible."

–George Pierce Baker

Tweet
Share

Comments

42 thoughts on “Monday Open Thread”

  2.  

    Democrats expect Obama to veto pipeline bill if it passes Senate

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A Democratic leader said on Sunday a single vote could determine the fate of the Keystone XL pipeline in the U.S. Senate this week but that President Barack Obama was likely to veto the bill even if it passes.

    The Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives on Friday approved the pipeline, which would carry oil from Canada to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast, and the Senate is expected to consider it on Tuesday.

    The 45 Republicans in the Senate need to find 15 Democrats to join them in voting for the pipeline in order to send the bill to Obama. The legislation circumvents the need for approval of TransCanada Corp's $8 billion project by the Obama administration, which has been considering it for more than six years.

    "It's within a vote or two," Dick Durbin, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, said of current Senate support, speaking on CNN's "State of the Union."

    "I've done the counts and I can tell you it appears it may succeed or fail on a procedural vote with one or two senators making a difference.

    This is a fairly good article from Reuters, but once again, an MSM reporter allows Republicans to spread misinformation without challenge. To wit….

    The pipeline's backers say it will create jobs and lower gasoline prices but opponents are concerned about its environmental impact.

    Aside from the temporary bump in jobs for a small number of existing companies, this boondoggle will only provide a handful of continuing jobs. Lower gasoline prices? Really?…Where?…Certainly not here…

    I will try to find a map of the proposed route, which amounts to a shortcut of an existing pipeline that runs east and then south, arriving at the hub where the XL is planned to connect. There is already an existing pipeline, but it is already full…supplying a saturated market that has seen a 25% drop in oil prices. A trend that will become the norm for the forseeable future.

    There is practically no benefit to this nation except to make a profit for a few people…most notably Charlie and Dave.

     

      1. From that liberal rag, Forbes:  KeystoneXL Won't Lower Gas Prices, it Might Raise Them

        In Keystone’s weirdonomics, the pipeline would actually increase prices of gasoline for much of the country, according to at least three studies that have looked into it. Keystone would divert crude from Midwest refineries to Gulf Coast refineries, where it would then be shipped to more expensive markets. Bypassing heartland refineries could drive up prices at home.

        For people living in the Midwest, Great Plains and Rocky Mountains, it could add 20 cents a gallon to the price at the pump.

          1. So it raises our cost of gasoline, gives us maybe 50 new jobs and Chuck and Dave end up with another billion dollars.  What could possibly go wrong?  (btw, Colorado's wind sector today employs more than 80x the number of projected permanent Keystone employees)

            Thanks, Congress!!

      2. Good info, all…………and NPR does the same kind of lazy reporting: Democrats said this, Republicans said that, as if there is no discernable truth. Sad.

    3. I hope he vetoes it if it gets to his desk.  Those cowardly Democrats shouldn't let it get to a vote.  That is what the Republicans did.  For once, I'd like the to show some backbone.  There, I feel better saying that.

      2. If it passes in the Senate (and it probably will), there were 161 "no" votes in the House last Friday.  There were also a lot of "not voting" members, including Colorado's own Ed Perlmutter.  And there were some "yes" votes by Dems who might vote to sustain a veto.  It takes 146 to sustain a veto in the House.

        That doesn't even get to the point where Yertle and his flunkies must try to get to 67 votes in the Senate.

        I say we do not filibuster it but let the constitutional process play out.  This way we don't look like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, and Obama gets to start putting the Congressional Repubs in their places…….

    1. Speaking on CBS "Face the Nation," the former Republican presidential nominee criticized Obama’s Middle East policy, saying the United States should have kept “American troops standing by in Iraq,” and armed moderate rebel factions in Syria, “so they would able to keep something like ISIS from being formed.”

      Is the right infiltrating Huffpo? They print this crap knowing full well who was on watch when it happened. Or did I miss something?

       

  5. Udall's Last Stand: Will he Maintain his Fight Against Torture or Leave Congress a Company Man?

    One of the few issues that Mark Udall was proud of during his one-term as a Blue Dog, Fiscally Conservative Senator was his principled stand against the CIA's use of torture and the NSA's vast spy network that was used against innocent Americans as much as any guilty terrorist. 

    For this I cheered him.

    Now that his political fate has been determined, it is time for Udall to determine the fate of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on torture:

    Human rights and transparency advocates have been urging U.S. Sen. Mark Udall to release a classified report on the CIA’s alleged use of torture. Udall has been at the center of debate about how heavily the report should be redacted before its release to the public. Udall has pushed for as much transparency as possible, looking to the “truth and reconciliation” approach forged in recent decades in countries like South Africa, which have sought to overcome histories marked by civil conflict.

    In his first interview since losing his reelection bid to Republican Rep. Cory Gardner, Udall told The Denver Post that he hasn’t taken the option of ‘leaking’ the report off the table.

    “Transparency and disclosure are critical to the work of the Senate intelligence committee and our democracy so I’m going to keep all options on the table to ensure the truth comes out,” Udall told the Post.

    He was referring to the privilege provided to members of Congress through the Constitution’s “Speech or Debate Clause,” in which Udall could read the report into the record on the floor of the Senate because lawmakers are immune from prosecution when speaking officially in the chambers.

    Mark Udall should do what's right for the country in this case. He should put the lie to Bush and Cheney-era torture policies, and he should put future presidents on notice that they are not above the law. 

    There are many who feel the same way. And it is undeniable that we can't claim the high road in support of human rights when we so often take the low road for the convenience of our leaders who could not care less about the legacy they leave  behind (and who failed so miserably with the tools they were given).

    As his term winds down, will Mark Udall be a 'Senator with Guts" or will he be a Company Man?

    1. Don't you think it is a little late for Udall to have some guts?

      He is lining up his life after Congress.

      First up to by a spokesman for testosterone supplements.

      If there was ever a born spokesman for Low- T it is Mark Udall.

      1. Another work computer to install the Chrome extension on…  I had already forgotten what I was missing and was taking my stench-free Pols experience for granted.

        1. Pcat, please post the link again (to your NoPolsTrolls script) and the link for the Stylish plugin. I, too, would like to de-stankify my work computers.

          Thanks,

          mj

    1. I'm shocked.

      CNN's story tries to turn it in to "both sides do it", but I don't see the equivalency between Republicans using coded messages to pass poll results (which cost money) and Democrats posting up-front campaign messages that end up in independent ads. Republicans had to devise the encoding scheme in a coordinated manner out from the public view.

      The FEC, of course, will do nothing about it – they're hopelessly deadlocked.

  8. Michael Bennet finalizing a campaign strategy even as he trembles at coming up for air, following his failed run as DSCC Chair. What will be his strategy? More importantly, who will Sen. Bennet be the next 2 years? I can't wait to see what DC's finest consultants – and architect of the Bannock Street Beakdown – have devised for Colorado's voters.

    1. Hmmmmmmm, Bennet signs a sternly worded letter in support of Obama action on immigration:

      "Because House Republicans have not acted, we fully support your decision to use your well-established executive authority to improve as much of the immigration system as you can," the Democrats wrote to Obama.

      The letter is signed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV), Majority Whip Dick Durbin (IL) and Sens. Chuck Schumer (NY), Bob Menendez (NJ), Michael Bennet (CO) and Patty Murray (WA). Schumer, Durbin, Menendez and Bennet are the Democratic members of the "gang of 8" which co-wrote the Senate-passed immigration bill; Murray is No. 4 in party leadership.

      It's something.

      1. Apparently, probably at the urging of these exact same legislators among others, Obama refrained from pushing for anything meaningful that could give the Rs more mean things to say about him and ever cowering Dems going into the election in an effort help more of them keep or get elected to seats.  It did zero good. Dems did even worse in the House, Senate and gubernatorial elections than expected.

        Kind of makes one wonder what it would have been like if they'd all grown a pair before the election. Perhaps they wouldn't have pissed off anyone inclined to vote for Dems instead of Rs anyway and might have inspired higher turn out among Dem demos, especially Latino Americans and young idealistic Americans.  

        Too late to find out but apparently our stubbornly let's hold hands and sing President has found losing his Dem Senate freeing and I hope Udall goes out in a blaze of glory. He could spend the rest of his days in the lame duck Democratic Senate making as much noise as possible for the issues he's most passionate about, citizens' rights and conservation. It won't change anything material in the legislative present but there would be value in grabbing some attention for those issues.

        Rehashing the elections is finally petering out in the 24/7 world of cable (and here too) and they might cover someone loud enough on those issues on the occasional day when nobody has been beheaded, committed  a mass shooting or died of Ebola and no celebrity has been the object of scandal.  Or not. May as well give it a try.

  10. Hey mamajama, Duke, et al,

    I wanted to get back to you on your questions about  the recent CU study on some of the constituents in fracking & produced water. I've gotten a copy of the actual research paper (as opposed to media reports) and my conclusion is that we are witnessing incredibly irresponsible journalism and standard incremental science.

    The irresponsible journalism starts with CU media relations who put out a very misleading press release. Lazy reporters used the language suggested by CU media … "no more toxic than substance commonly found in homes" … "commonly found in everyday products" … "putting down our drains at home".  The one exception is a story by Nancy Lofholm who seems to have done her own work and talked with the authors and gained an understanding of the research.

    The actual research reported in the journal Analytical Chemistry, was very clear that the authors set out to identify the specific combinations of surfactants in a few samples of fracking and produced water to see if their technique could be used as a "fingerprint" of different frack solutions that could then be used to determine if water has been contaminated.

    The researchers looked at surfactants because they had a machine on hand that could be used to detect these particular compounds. They were NOT trying to characterize fracking solutions as "safe" or "not safe." The storyline that fracking uses little more than millions of gallons of dilute laxatives can be attributed to CU media relations and laziness. If I was one of the study's researchers, I would be furious. (I'm furious and I had nothing to do with the research!) As best as I can tell, the CU researchers conducted a legitimate study that can be used to develop a database of frack solution "fingerprints." They do not deserve our scorn. On the other hand, lazy "journalists" deserve all the scorn we can direct their way, whereas Journalists (with a capital J) like Nancy Lofholm deserve recognition and notes of appreciation. 

    Anybody from the O&G industry who references this study as evidence of the safety of fracking operations also deserve our scorn and ridicule. Their quickness to do so indicates that they have no interest in "sound" science, only potential data that supports their shortterm economic interests. (I'm looking at you, Courtney Loper, Energy in Depth, who said "the study backs up the oil and gas industry's assertion that hydraulic fracturing is a fundamentally safe technology" and you too, Doug Flanders, COGA, who said "this should again give comfort that oil and gas development is being conducted responsibly."

    2. Thanks for following up on that, ardy. It's somewhat comforting that the original CU researchers were trying to do legit environmental science. Do you have a link to the research paper?

      Legitimacy may depend upon which CU department does the research. saw two wildly divergent CU Leeds School of Business studies on oil and gas's impact on the economy – the first one was a straightforward study which found that oil and gas directly contributed only 26,000 jobs to Colorado's economy in 2012 – the other one warned of the dire die-off of 110,000 great jobs if fracking were banned, which no one was considering. CU's President, Bruce Benson, is an unapologetic oil and gas man, and climate change denialist.  Jake Jabs, the furniture guy and right wing wacko, is a major funder.

      It's unsurprising that the industry apologists like COGA's Flanders are mischaracterizing the study as showing that fracking chemicals are no more harmful than rinsing toothpaste down the drain.

      CU is also collaborating with NOAA and other university researchers in tracking methane and volatile pollutants from oil and gas production, including fracking, in Colorado. These researchers found levels of methane and other pollutants almost 50% higher than the highest levels Colorado Department of Health had found in its long-term studies, and double the EPA's estimate of 1.8 percent. That's a lot of climate-changing methane out there, boys.

      There's plenty of research underway, on public health impacts, water and air pollution, etc. I may have to do a lot more reading and analysis on it to get a feel for the findings before I can write intelligently about it. In the meantime, we have to keep pushing back on the idiots who claim that the industry is responsible, there is no danger, everything's hunky dory.

      We need regulation, we need monitoring, we need enforcement, we need the state's lobbyists including its governor to pay attention to the findings and not be swayed by that sweet, sweet pap put out by industry apologists.

    3.  

      I've thought about it: DIA isn't merely a satisfied, impartial consumer; it's an industry stakeholder-cum-mouthpiece:

      …there were oil and gas wells at Denver International even before the airport was there.

      …And Denver International brought in $6.2 million in 2012, about 1 percent of its revenue, from its 76 wells. (NY Times.)

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

154 readers online now

Newsletter

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