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 21, 2014 11:10 PM UTC

Weekend Open Thread

  • 130 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

"The truly scary thing about undiscovered lies is that they have a greater capacity to diminish us than exposed ones." 

–Cheryl Hughes

Tweet
Share

Comments

130 thoughts on “Weekend Open Thread”

  1. "Expanded" military role in Afghanistan?!

    What for? I hate the Friday news cycles, esp right before big holidays.

     

    As for the oddity of a lawsuit about ACA in response to an EO on immigration- it's not odd. The opposition cannot win a lawsuit about the eo.  They can't win on ACA either, but a 56th failed vote to overturn would sting.

     

     

    1. They will eventually get their 56th vote on repeal in January.  And it will pass both chambers.  And Obama will veto it.

      And then Boner and Yertle will hold a press conference, display great indignation that it is all Obama's fault that we still have Obamacare.

      Then they will start picking at some of the less popular features of the law (e.g., the tax on medical devices) which will pass and perhaps be enacted over a veto.  Further running up the federal deficit.

      But the main parts of the law will remain.

      1. FU, The Supremes rule the subsidies only apply to state exchanges.  The R's pass a bill which equalizes the treatment and eliminates subsidies for all exchanges or vastly reduces them proportionately.  Problem solved.  You have exchanges.  You have no preexisting conditions.  Obamacare becomes an insurance agency.

  3. Problem Solving – Obama Style

    Black Unemployment at over 11%.

    Stagnant wages for the lower and middle classes.

    How to solve the problem?

    Let's go to the book, Obama Style, for answers.

    “Relative surplus-population is therefore the pivot upon which the law of demand and supply of labour works.” The availability of labour influences wage rates, and the larger the unemployed workforce grows, the more this forces down wage rates; conversely, if there are plenty jobs available and unemployment is low, this tends to raise the average level of wages—in that case workers are able to change jobs rapidly to get better pay. – Karl Marx, “Wages,” December 1847

    Oops.  Time to encourage immigration to depress wages but keep his oligarch paymasters happy.

      1. Hey AHole.  You never replied to 36's question yesterday about what Republicans will do regarding affordable health care coverage after they repeal and destroy the Affordable Care Act.  What's their grand plan Stan?

        Oh that's right.  A petulant baby like you can't bring anything of substance to this site.  The only thing you can do is show up with 'Obama bad' gifs.  What a fucking doofus.

                1. Another country heard from  Highly recommended.  It's such a shock when I visit Pols from my phone or IPad now and see what I've been missing.  If I wanted the ignoramus POV I could click on the comments of any Denver Post article on FaceBook.  No thanks.

          2. Part of the fun of this site to me Mama is that there are no filters on exchanges.  I'm one of those people who like mental free for alls.  The little turd is representative of a whole sub-culture of Obama haters.  AHole usually parrots the standard Obama hating points so reading him lets you know what everyone else of his ilk are parroting when you go to other websites.
             

              1. We're not the only people who visit this site Tabby.  A lot of times the people who do post forget that there is traffic by people who don't post.  I think we owe it to the silent readers to sometimes vigorously challenge the blatant lies and stupid sophistry.  Point out the factual errors and erroneous logic.  Spell it out for the silent readers why Obama hating 24-7-365 is bullshit so they can recognize when Uncle Albert starts using the same lame lines.

                1. Sounds like a dirty, nasty job . . .

                  . . . and, anyway, I'm giving the unspoken visitors to this site the benefit of the doubt as to their own intelligence — anyone with half a wit will figure out after reading a couple of posts of our idiot trolls what useless morons they are (probably of the same cloth as that FOXy Uncle Albert they wish wasn't coming to Thanksgiving).  Let 'em hang themselves with their own idiocy . . . 

                  . . . I'd much rather scrub my toilets (another weekend's chores, I guess).

                2. Kudos to you for trying to counter AC's distortions and deceptions. I'm done trying. A right wing site would have banned AC's progressive counterpart long ago.

                  1. That's why we're different from the righties mama.  We're not afraid of different opinions.  We just ridicule them when they are stupid.

                    You notice he never came back to this thread and offer anything to show that he recognizes he is part of a community that likes to discuss politics with actual facts and ideas.  Zero contribution.

            2. Whatever floats your boat, GG. As for me, I'll save my written interactions for people who actually show response and understanding, possibly change of mind,rather than just rewording of the same old talking points.

              There are plenty of conservatives and Republicans who post on here who do think and respond, not just restate their original premises, if you like dialogue. For a start, I refuse to correspond with anyone who cannot seem to put the IC on the end of Democratic.

                1.  

                  What is so amazing though, is the only difference between Piss Ant and The Con Man is that Cory at least has the unmitigated gall to say the same shit publicly…using his real name. So if you get points for unmitigated gall, Cory wins…because cowardice is the refuge of the Tapinoma sessile.

            1. Since their response to the executive action on immigration has been to to dredge up the law suit on ACA, it's pretty apparent Borg central has no answer on the former.

                1. What it would cost is academic since it's simply not possible. Period. Not happening. Everyone knows it. In place of this fantasy, Rs offer nothing in the way of a practical solution. That's their forte. It spares them the trouble of doing anything but spewing entirely unhelpful but oh so satisfying (to them) and politically useful (to them) poison.  

                  1. I guess the other alternative would be to emulate China's approach to dealing with corruption.  Start executing business owners who hire illegal aliens.  Put a bullet between the eyes of a few and see if it chills hiring practices.

                    1. And then bill the family of the deceased convict for the cost of the bullet……how's that for putting market principles into practice, Moddy?

            3. All y’all are barking up the wrong pinyon.
              the GOTP silence IS their answer. Govt is best the less it does. We don’t need no stinking ACA, there’s a market solution . We don’t need no snow plows-it will melt. Banking laws are for socialists.
              Subsidies are for capitalists, labor laws are for the lazy aND weak.
              Burn more coal is the solution for all are problems, rapists should get to claim their victims as wives aND if God didn’t want us to have slaves, He wouldna made me so dark.
              Fergeson? Shee-it, howdy. You don’t see white people rioting when some grand jury fails to indict some bank ceo or the guy who embezzlled the country club.
              Market solution because no govern mentioned ever solved anything anywhere ever.

    1. This is how we know Obama did the right thing: it's driving R's crazy, from the lowest talk radio host to the highest elected official. Their 5th Column Media Brigadiers are beside themselves with fury and are whipping their base into another destructive frenzy. (Unfortunately, it'll be destructive far outside the realm of their normal hissy fits.)  A brief survey of talk radio last night showed this clearly, and it's just as clear that they won't stop talking about this Executive Order for weeks and, in reality, never.

      This is good because the hate is self-reinforcing at this point, and we actually may see heads, literally, explode. 😉

      Now, if we could only make sure Dems keep up their spirits thru this assault on our democracy by the Professional Blusterers, and refrain from the kind of Moronic Platitudes of our fair Governor, and maybe even push back on some of it, the we know it'll pass with merely a whimper of the Party of the Rich, White, Male.

      (It just occured to me that Immigration! might be the Republican Party's next Abortion/Gay Marriage!…..since they have just recently lost those 2 quite resoundingly.)

      Keep it up, R's………them brown folks 'll learn their lesson some way or t' other!

      And now I hereby predict a surge in KKK activities in Colorado. Thank you Republicans, for showing us all that Good, Christian Love and America's Ideals are alive and well in The Party of Lincoln.

      1. To find the KKK in Colorado, start with the Coors family.

        The Coors family used to let the KKK meet on Coors mountain in Golden, and still has  ties to the KKK and other hate groups, through the Coors and Heritage Foundation, and the organizations which they support.

        I haven't sipped on a Coors beer since the early 1970s, and don't plan to.

        The Independence Institute's efforts to delegitimize Colorado's voting laws are clearly aimed at suppressing the votes of Democrats, poor people, and minorities. The II is still right in line with its founding family's principles.
         

        1. MJ, you are missing out.  It is good beer.

          BTW, My wife drives a Ford, he of anti-semite fame, and she is Jewish.

          You change people through love, not hate.

        2. I've never been a Coors drinker because it's such a weak, tasteless brew but I now can consider it an act of protest. Cool. And painless. 

          PS Compared to Coors even the midwestern PBR I grew up drinking is like gourmet micro brew.  I see it's having a bit of a hipster revival though I haven't had any in decades.

          1. I just had a Pabst Blue Ribbon, BC, and it is delicious as always.   By the way, it's the only major brand I know of that is still union brewed!  I was birthed on Coors and admit I like it — Banquet, I don't like any light beer swills– but I cut them off when Coors funded a right to work campaign.

            PBR is cheaper, better and union made –a that's a triple play.   So by all means, go down to Argonaut and buy 30 cans for about $18 bucks and enjoy the good life!

        3. As Hunter S Thompson observed, "Bad people drink bad beer." 

          I've found this to be quite accurate, and our little librarian is another data point supporting HST's claim. 

          Coors is what I produce about an hour after finishing a New Belgium Rampant Imperial IPA. 

  6. Missouri public officials should have been doing community policing, cleaning up police departments by investigating and disciplining racist and violent officers, training officers in nonviolent police work, working with churches and social service agencies, talking one on one with people.

    Instead, they set up a situation where Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson will almost certainly walk away from Michael Brown's murder with no disciplinary action at all. Prosecutor McCullough, who has never found a police officer guilty of excessive force in 14 years on the job. Grand jury ruling is expected soon – last day of testimony was yesterday, and deliberations have begun.

    And what the hell are they doing to prepare the community for this likely continuation of injustice in Brown's death? With presumption that the community will be guilty of protesting, and need military intervention to quell the protests. The National Guard has been called up and deployed in Ferguson, 100 FBI agents have been sent in. The Governor called a state of emergency. Protests against likely injustice are to be met with military force. WTF, people?

    Can you imagine this happening in a white town with white protesters and a white victim of police violence? I can't.

    2. MJ, The grand jury makes it decision based on the facts presented.

      Leave open the possibility that they will carefully examine the evidence and conclude that the officer should not be charged with a crime, unpopular as that may be on this site.  If so, that is injustice but your opinion without seeing the evidence would be just?

      1. As you [almost] say, the grand jury makes its decision based on the evidence presented by the prosecutor.  A prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich if he wants.  If Darren Wilson isn't indicted, chances are that's because the prosecutor doesn't want him indicted.

        1. does any unarmed suspect who is quite a distance away from an armed officer  who has his weapon loaded aimed then always need to be killed? Seems like that's the police policy nowadays.

          1. While police sources said that Mike Brown was only 35 feet away from Wilson's SUV when he was shot, the actual measured distance between the SUV and Brown's death spot was 148 feet. Per Kos and Shaun King's reporting.  This is critical because it shows that Wilson kept coming after Brown even though Brown was trying his best to flee.

            I really hope that Wilson gets at least an involuntary manslaughter conviction – but we will have to see.

  7. Let's see the Majority Republican House and Senate pass a law throwing those in jail who hire undocumented workers. A nice 5 years in Leavenworth will truly put a stop to their behavior and might give them (not me) the demographic result they want. The outcry from their 1%-er base would be deafening.

    1. Scott Tipton and the Republican caucus in the House just want a nice little guest worker program. Zip the workers in, ship them out after the harvest. No rights to organize, no path to citizenship. The last thing they would want to do is penalize employers for hiring undocumented workers.

      The food does have to be harvested, the dirty jobs must be done. Nowhere is it written that those who work those jobs should be the victims of abuse and wage theft, scorned and treated without dignity or a living wage.

      1. Only because they feel forced to propose something.  What they really like is the wink wink win way it's always been. Plenty of cheap undocumented labor to be exploited. You could get away with anything including not paying them because who were they going to complain to?  All the while you were profiting off them you could use them as scapegoats to rile up the base and middle you needed to keep voting against their own economic interests. They never really wanted to do anything to upset the system wherein the laws don't work and aren't obeyed all to their economic and political advantage. But they can't very well say any of that right out loud.

    2. Actually, it's an excellent wedgy issue for the GOP.  Yes, the 1% would never allow it to happen because it would give them the choice of being imprisoned felons or bankruptcy.  The xenophobic Tea Baggers, OTOH, would be ecstatic over it.

  8. Screw the defending of President Obama’s correct decision to move the immigration issue past a bunch of petulant babies who only want to play politics with human lives, and screw defending the clear value of that action to the idiot assworms here . . .

    Next up (I hope), something about wages and income inequality, because even at it’s best right now, it’s pretty fucking awful right now . . .

    Falling Wages at Factories Squeeze the Middle Class

    ” . . . A new study by the National Employment Law Project, to be released on Friday, reveals that many factory jobs nowadays pay far less than what workers in almost identical positions earned in the past.

    Perhaps even more significant, while the typical production job in the manufacturing sector paid more than the private sector average in the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s, that relationship flipped in 2007, and line work in factories now pays less than the typical private sector job. That gap has been widening — in 2013, production jobs paid an average of $19.29 an hour, compared with $20.13 for all private sector positions.

    Pressured by temporary hiring practices and a sharp decrease in salaries in the auto parts sector, real wages for manufacturing workers fell by 4.4 percent from 2003 to 2013, NELP researchers found, nearly three times the decline for workers as a whole.

    Despite that widening gap, Washington still paints the manufacturing sector as a gateway to the middle class, even if the gate is closing . . . ”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/21/business/falling-wages-at-factories-squeeze-the-middle-class.html

    1. Vestas wind systems manufacturing jobs are still paying well. In both Pueblo and Greeley, wind energy jobs are a strong and increasing boost to the local economies. 800 jobs by the end of 2014.

      And, unlike the oil and gas boom, wind and renewable energies won't run out, nor will they cause cancer and asthma in those near its sources.

      Dio, maybe it will take a Danish company offshoring to the US to reverse some of the effects of corporate offshoring and downsizing of manufacturing jobs.

      1. Hard to see how a full steam ahead commitment to a new energy economy could do anything but create a new economic engine for the creation of well paying jobs that would have the added advantage of not being subject to the boom and bust cycles of fossil fuels.

         

        1. Colorado is one of eight states nationally recognized for their leadership in green energy. We are in fact so far ahead of the proposed EPA Clean Power proposal that our elected representatives have no need for smelling salts as they rail on the President's proposal.

          None of this happened by accident; in the face of tremendous headwinds in 2004, the Amendment 37 campaign set the stage for our dramatic success by putting in place the nation's first, citizen-initiated renewable portfolio standard. That mandate was increases twice under the Ritter Administration. Today we have the second most-aggressive RPS in the nation, one we'll meet early.

          These mandates have delivered tremendous benefits to rural Colorado. Today, billions of dollars in wind projects dot the eastern plains because of these mandates. These projects are a tremendous addition to our local tax base, providing new revenue streams for county governments.

          It is one of the best examples of how interdependent the rural-urban worlds are in Colorado: we get the tax base, the Front Range gets cost-effective, clean power – and we all end up with cleaner air and thousands of new, good-paying jobs.

          Coming Clean: The State of U.S. Renewable Energy

           

          2. On this 51st-anniversary weekend of the JFK assassination, and as we suffer fools who dismiss science, arithmetic and the foundation of the American ideal – here's a seven-minute video of Kennedy's 'Moon Shot' speech that most of you will appreciate. 

            The major challenges we face today don't seem nearly as daunting as a 'Moon Shot' – we already hold the necessary tools to tackle the transitions away from energy, climate and economic decay. Today our challenges are no longer technological but political in nature, fueled by unlimited, special interest dollars. 

      1. I'll have to check my spam but I think I've been l left off the list.  I do still find offers from various African bankers in my spam folder, though. Now that I think of it, one of my grandparents was born in Kiev so why not me?

  10. The Cheese Stands Alone

    Anyone else notice the story in the Post this morning re:  Stillborn is the only Repub in the CO delegation calling for a government shutdown to force Obama to back down on immigration EO?

  12. From Political Wire:

    Longtime Clinton adviser Harold Ickes said a Republican presidential ticket of Jeb Bush and Sen. Rob Portman would be tough for Democrats to beat in 2016, the Daily Beast reports.

    “A Bush-Portman ticket could doom Democrats in Bush’s native Florida and in Portman’s Ohio… and Bush’s Hispanic support would make Colorado a difficult lift as well.”

    Said Ickes: “Bush has what appears to be very strong credentials with Hispanics. I’m told he speaks Spanish at home, and I’m told that he actually thinks in Spanish.”

    Jeb Bush is who I fear the most of potential GOP 2016 candidates.  Adding Portman to the ticket would pose problems for Dems winning Ohio.  Note how Colorado might be in play due to Bush's Hispanic creds.  I think Bush can win the GOP nomination (see: McCain's path to victory through FL) and then it would be game on against Hillary.

    Given the Dems' pathetic inability to create a positive message means that I don't think Hillary's win is a slam dunk like I used to think.

        1. hell, I remember Hillary's inevitability in 2008!  I'm an HRC fan, but don't expect a free ride to the nomination.  Too many lefties like Dust Puppy hate the fact that she is a modereate on economic issues.

          1. So true……we Dems have our own version of the tea party on the left.  For them, it's better to be pure and out of office, than take center-left positions and win office.

            1. Disagree. I believe most on the left do not think it's better to be pure and out of office. We absolutely want to win AND implement policies to move the country forward on a wide range of issues from environmental to economic without waiting 100 years, and without continuing to appease the plutocrats.

              1. That just about sums 'er up, perfectly.  What passes for the "center" of the Democratic Party now, is the equivalent of Rockefeller Republicans in the early '60s–except that Rockefeller Republicans, unlike "centrist" Dems, supported:

                • labor unions;
                • government spending on infrastructure;
                • New Deal programs; 
                • the social safety net; and
                • Keynesian economics.

                The successful effort on the part of Wall Street and its neoliberal allies to move the party "center" to the right is one of their lasting achievements, and happened in time with the death of labor unions.

                Polling–and non-candidate election results–prove that a majority of Americans support most progressive policies; it's just that there's almost no one left in elected office who is willing or wants to move these policies through the legislative process.

                1. Folks. My main point that I will repeat ad nauseum is that Dems cannot win no matter who is running without better messaging touting Dem successes for the middle class. Currently, a minority of voters believe that Dems are better than Repugs for the middle class. We lose if we can’t win that simple argument.

          2. Accusing Edward Snowden of aiding terrorists and anti-Americanism in general?

            http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/hillary-clinton-snowden-nsa-russia-china

            Supporting war in Iraq, a greater surge in Afghanistan, and intervention in both Libya and Syria.

            http://reason.com/archives/2014/04/28/hillary-clinton-the-unrepentant-hawk

            http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/11/opinion/ghitis-hillary-clinton-attacks-obama-foreign-policy/index.html

            Her sudden "conversion" on marriage equality

            http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/hillary-clintons-gay-marriage-problem/372717/

            If you think the left has issues with Hillary just because she supports a form of "free" trade that we on the left think only leaves jobs "free" to leave this country, you haven't been listening to either us or her.  Who knows, maybe her time "dead broke*" will change her views on saving the middle class.

            *Well, rich-people broke

            http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jun/10/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-she-and-bill-were-dead-broke/

             

            1. Yes, I have issues with Hillary Clinton- some of which you cite in your comment.

              Yes, if she is the Democratic nominee, I'll vote for her. It will be even easier to do so if the GOP  nominates some extremist, like Cruz or Paul.

            2. Well said.  She will be the nominee–there is absolutely no way that the Wall Street/corporatist handler/controllers of the Democratic Party (at the national level) will let a non-neolib get the nomination. Look what happened to Howard Dean:  I'm not saying he would've been the nominee anyway, but it was very interesting to see the neolib candidates in the '04 primary band together and send him down via the sacrificial lamb Gephardt.

              Wall Street was probably not terribly displeased with Obama; but, there are numerous accounts of how happy they are with Hillary–and how they don't buy her vague populist talk for a New York minute.

              1. They shouldn't. There isn't a populist bone in her body and she's just as pro-corporate as our own Senator Bennet and occupies pretty much the same place on the left/right scale. 

                The only thing sillier than Dems having refused to take Obama at his centrist word and re-imagine him as a progressive champion is the effort progressives always seem to be making to turn centrist, pro-corporate, triangulating, DLC star HRC into the same thing. Same with our own Romanoff. Why were we all so surprised by that stupid balance budget amendment ad, I wonder? What did we expect?

                I'll support HRC if she wins the nomination but if she wins the WH I certainly won't be naive enough to be all disappointed when she turns out to be neither populist nor particularly progressive. Nobody who's been paying any attention should expect her to be.

                A male Dem pol identical to HRC on the issues wouldn't excite the base a bit and that's the truth. But HRC is a potential first woman President and that's a big deal, no doubt about it. I just think it's way to early to assume anything about 2016. If she's our candidate, I'll try my best to like her better.

  14. I have zero respect for Ickes.

    Zero.

    And Clinton won't be the 2016 Democratic nominee – she is not inevitable and I must remind you that she was also "inevitable" in '08 but lost to Obama.

     

        1. Obviously,k  I voted for Obama.   But I think we would have been clearly further ahead with Hillary.  She knows the importance of smoozing Congress and showed the ability to work with both parties while in the Senate.   Obama is smart, but so what — you hire staff people.  I don't think he has the temperment for a great president.  Remember Oliver Wendell Holmes's description of Franklin D. Roosevelt : "A second-rate intellect but a first-rate temperment."

          Obama is the anti-Roosevelt.   I'd happily trade about 20 of his iq points for a correspondent gain in emotional intelligence.

          1. Interesting point, V. I would be interested in hearing you elaborate on that term and what it means to you. Not having walked in his shoes, I can only guess at his motives and reasons. I still believe he has done  an admirable job, considering the circumstances, but I will not argue the point about whether Hillary would have done better.

            I think President Obamas' greatest weakness is his seeming unwillingness to shut doors on people…he still insists on being "organizer in chief", many of whom I have known…they never want to piss off anyone….always leaving open every door.

            1. I caucused for HRC in '08, and voted for BO in the general.  No regrets about either.  My vote for HRC in the caucus was pure pragmatism:  

              I did not know whether Obama could close the deal by running as a "post-partisan" aloof candidate.  I'm old enough to remember when Michael Dukakis would not dignify the shit thrown at him by Lee Atwater & Co.  I remember Daddy Bush munching on his pork rinds and sneering at Dukakis and Harvard Yard.  We all know how that race turned out, do we not?  Obama and His campaign advisors surprised me by running a winning strategy and expanding the map.

              My vote for Hillary in the caucuses was based on my desire to make certain a Dem was elected that November.  The Clintons are a lot of things (including ruthless), but they do not like to lose.

              Elizabeth Warren is nice.  I like much of what she says.  But can she run a successful campaign, let alone govern?  I'm not convinced of either.  (We already saw how BO was able to run an excellent campaign but then let these nitwits like John Boner and Yertle McConnell run circles around him when it came to governing.  Remember how the Clintons dealt with Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole?)

              I have nothing against aloof intellectuals.  They make fine professors on university faculties.  (This is along the lines of Voyageur's quote about FDR.)  But our party has this history, dating back to the 1950's, of nominating eggheads who go on to loss.

              There is a big difference between an intellectual and an intelligent candidate who can communicate with the masses.  Bill and Hillary Clinton were (and are) the later.  Obama is more of the former.

                1. Let me also recommend a book by Ron Suskind. "Confidence Men" was written during Obamas first term and deals, in detail, with President Obamas' relationship to Wall Street, notably his dealings with Jamie Dimon. The relationship between Larry summers and the president was key to the decisions he, Obama, made during that time. He made some bad decisions there.

                  I have no doubt that Hillary is as much a drinking buddy of the American Aristocracy as is Michael Bennet. While I agree that Warren isn't quite ready…I think she genuinely isn't a Wall Street sympathizer.

                  1. Completely agree with all points, except that I felt HRC was the more unelectable back in 2008 so didn't see the point in supporting her, especially as I've never been a fan. Not surprised an African American man made it before a woman and  think the biggest hurdle will actually be a non-Christian. I don't expect a professed atheist or a President Cohen or Goldberg any time soon.

                    Warren as you point out, isn't a practical choice. Yet. That could change. Obama wouldn't have been a practical choice in the climate of the very recent past either. It was not long ago that the idea of a non-white making it to the WH in the lifetimes of boomer Americans was considered a pipe dream. Same goes for today's broad acceptance of gay rights including marriage. Tipping points can sneak up fast. A populist like Warren could go from un to electable any time, depending. 

                    As for current leading force, HRC, hating Bennet and loving her makes no sense. They are about as precisely on the same page as two pols can be. I'm sure she'll have his most enthusiastic support and HRC fans ought to be fair minded enough to appreciate that. Tha is if, in this stuff happens world, it really does turn out to be HRC.

                    I  do understand the enthusiasm for an HRC candidacy, but I wish people wouldn't get so carried away with trying to pretend that the Dem candidates they support are something other than what they really are. Obama and Romanoff and HRC are all centrists, not liberal champions. Only Romanoff ever tried to portray himself as such.  Once. Neither Obama nor HRC has ever said or done anything to deceive people about their pro-corporate centrism. It's the adoring supporters who do the deceiving and it's themselves they deceive.  

                    So it's fine to keep up the kind of pressure that leads to tipping points and to pressure our Dem pols to take full aggressive advantage of those tipping points in a timely fashion (something they so far mainly fail to do) but let's do so without kidding ourselves.

                2. I prefer a more balanced view of Obama's presidency than your linked article provides

                  Please Cut the Crap posted a list of Obama's 269 accomplishments as of summer 2014.

                  Paul Krugman, in a recent Rolling Stone article, touted the President's economic successes.

                  I'm with Krugman in wanting Obama-haters to be more balanced.

                  • Obama has not closed Guantanemo, but has banned torture;
                  • he has not single-handedly reformed the health care system, but the Affordable Care Act is a huge step forward, which will save American lives and health.
                  • He has not single-handedly reformed the immigration system, but has done most of what he could legally do to keep immigrant families together.
                  • Afghanistan and Iraq? ISIS/ ISIL? It's the pottery barn rule – we broke it under Bush Jr's watch; we will be paying for its breaking for generations.

                  I think history will see Obama as another FDR; leading us out from economic disaster and war, promoting big ideas for the democratic experiment, and yet still flawed and not all that he promised us that he would be.  Those on the right who vilify him will continue to do so.

                   

                   

                  1. I don't hate Obama–I just disagree with his approach (and probably some of his politics).  ACA could have been Medicare for all–the votes very well might have been there.  But, the President and Max Baucus made sure that didn't happen.

                    The stimulus helped prevent a severe depression; but, it could have done much, much more for ordinary Americans if–as was entirely possible–it had been about $400 billion bigger.  But, that would've angered the Republicans.

                    Cap-and-trade–or, better yet, a carbon tax–would have been entirely possible in the first 100 days.  But–despite all evidence to the contrary–the President continued to believe that he could be above the fray acting as a nonpartisan leader, and still get things done.  So, not wanting to appear too liberal, the President did essentially nothing on climate change while his party held both Houses.

                    In instance after instance, despite the energy and enthusiasm generated by his campaign (= political capital), the President and his advisors chose to take baby steps (or none at all), wasting the best opportunity in the last 40 years to pass sweeping progressive legislation.

                    To be fair to the President, he has remained largely true to his very centrist, incrementalist, neoliberal political roots that existed before he ever ran for President.  He never actually claimed to be a liberal/progressive; his campaign just subtly spun it that way with vague yet exciting slogans.

                    So, how you rates the President's performance probably has much to do with (a) where you fall on the political spectrum; and (b) whether you favor an incrementalist approach vs. a "carpe diem" approach.  I suspect the President would rate his performance fairly highly.

                    1. Your analysis ignores that a significant part of the Democratic majority was Blue Dogs.  The things you wish they had passed would not have flown in their districts.  They rightly feared for their jobs.  Merely co-operating with president Blackenstein was enough to purge the lot of them.  

                       

                    2. Reply to Daft. True enough but also true that Blue Dogs can't make it in red states anymore anyway. Pretty much none to worry about saving whether you want to or not. Mary Landrieu is next and aside from being a warm body to count toward a Dem majority which is water under the bridge now, what good would saving her do Dems now anyway?

                      Even in competitive states Blue Dogs can no longer compete with Rs. Why vote for a Dem whose platform is…. we don't much like Dem policy or the Dem President…. if that message appeals to you, instead of voting for a real R?

                      Blue Dog conservative Dems will soon be completely, deader than a door nail extinct just like East Coast liberal Rs.

          2. I agree, V.  I've been increasingly disappointed in his ability to work with congress, and I don't mean the Rs.He can't be blamed for not being able to make any progress with them since their entire agenda was to destroy him. But he had Dem majorities to start out with and barely gave them the time of day.  Say what you will about an LBJ. He knew how to keep his  party in line by charming, twisting arms, cajoling or taking no prisoners, as the situation demanded, to get things done. Obama is great at the politics of getting elected, lousy at the nuts and bolts of leading his own once he gets there.  

            As this election demonstrated, there's not much love lost between our President and our Dem legislators and candidates. That's not something we can blame on the Rs.

  17. There she goes again.  Faux News was interviewing that intellectual heavy-weight, the former Governor of Alaska, who gave her take on immigration.  She said that the U.S. should place all those illegal Mexican immigrants onto boats and send them "across the ocean" to their home country.

    I would expect more from a woman could see Russia from her kitchen window. 

    1. Not to take anything away from the mind-numbing idiocy of Sarah Palin, but some illegal immigrants from Central America could conceivably cross an ocean to get home:

      However, these are also mostly legitimate refugees or are seeking asylum from gangs and cartel violence in their homelands.

      The recent shocking murders of 43 Mexican student teachers remind us of the horrific environment that the drug cartels, and American demand for drugs, has created.

      Instead of crossing the ocean, these families will most likely come to Greeley, or to another refugee resettlement center in the US. Many right wing groups would like these refugee resettlement centers to be closed, viewing them with deep suspicion, because they serve mostly dark-complected foreign people,  and many are Muslims.

      For the unaccompanied children, such as this summer's influx of children fleeing Central American violence, they may, unfortunately, be sent back to the hell they escaped at such cost. Their situation is complicated by court backlogs, stretched resources, and, unfortunately, wannabe politicians and right wing media hogs such as Palin, posturing and playing on the public's fears in order to gain a few minutes in the spotlight.

       

       

      1. "Agriculture ministers see natural forests and parks “as timber that should be chopped down for something ‘productive,’ like soybeans, cattle or oil palm,” said Rodríguez. Forest services and environment ministers “see their forests as carbon stocks, biodiversity reservoirs, water factories, food production plants, climate adaptation machines and tourism sites,” and protect them.

        Guess who’s in the first group? Honduras and Guatemala, where many people live on degraded hillsides. Some 50,000 children have been sent from Central America to the U.S. this year — unaccompanied. Where did they come from? Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, Central America’s most deforested states. They cut their forests; we got their kids.

        I promised you good news — sort of. It’s how many people are now focusing on the economic and national security value of their ecosystems. But the power that financiers and corrupt politicians still hold in setting the limits on what we can and cannot destroy in nature — as opposed to the scientists and biologists — remains the bad news."

        The bad news: — Kochs, Kochs, Kochs, Monsanto, Conagra, etc., etc., et al . . . 

         

        http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/23/opinion/sunday/thomas-l-friedman-stampeding-black-elephants.html?_r=0

         

        1. Conservation, economics, indigenous rights – it all fits together and can't be separated, although people can choose to work on only one aspect of the combined problem.

          Native people know this – as an acquaintance said years ago, "We don't need to protect Mother Earth. Mother Earth will be just fine. But we might not be."
           

    2. In any case, how many boats would you need for 11 million people. How  many people would you need to round them up in the first place? Where is the money for rounding up and providing boats to transport 11 million people going to come from? While the rest of the rightie pols and talking heads are just being cynical, I think Palin is actually stupid enough to think this is something that could be done and that it woudn't even involve raising taxes. And this is the person McCain, who's always carrying on about our security, was going to place first in line to his presidency. Seriously. 

      1. She was reformer with results.  She was a pit bull wearing lipstick.  And she had a nice rack for a middle-aged woman.

        What more can you demand……..

        And if anyone thinks that looks are not a consideration, think back to 1988 when Daddy Bush, cognescent of the gender gap, stumbled upon the brain fart of an idea of selecting Dan Quayle, who was relatively young and good looking, as his running mate because vacuous women would vote for the ticket.

        At least their quest for dimwitted, pretty looking V.P. candidates is gender- neutral.

  18. So it looks as if Bill Cosby raped multiple times. Sixteen women have now come forward with similar stories.  Of course, no criminal charges have been filed, and he deserves due process, like anyone else.

    I wanted this not to be true, for the accusations to be just from opportunists seeking to cash in on his celebrity. But I think not, now. And it makes me sick.

     

  19. Lindsey ("Ambiguously Gay" according to one of his primary opponents last year) Graham has labeled the House Benghazi report "full of crap."  Pretty harsh language  about a report prepared by a committee of tea partiers.

    I'm guessing Graham, McCain and Ayotte demand that Yertle assemble a Senate select committee to investigate Benghazi.  And maybe even investigate the House investigation…..

        1. Senator Graham is making a fool out of himself. The latest report from the House Intelligence Committee found no wrong doing on the part of the Obama administration in the Benhgazi tragedy.This is I believe the sixth investigation that has come to virtually the same conclusion. There is one more investigation pending.

          Since Senator Graham knows the latest report from a Republican Committee is "a bunch of crap," perhaps he could inform us of the "facts" he has in his possession that prove his theory. 

  20. I'm not  a techie like my husband so I had him turn AC off.  Anyway, it was nice not having to read his hateful rants any longer.  He showed up again today.  For some reason, he showed up again today.  My husband checked into it and he was turned back on.  Maybe the Koch Brothers are at work.  Just kidding.  He is gone again.

  21. Loving. This. Man.

    Pope Francis: 'Ideological Christians' are a 'Serious Illness'

    "When a Christian becomes a disciple of the ideology, he has lost the faith…"

    "You cannot avoid the interplay of politics within an orthodox religion. This power struggle permeates the training, educating and disciplining of the orthodox community. Because of this pressure, the leaders of such community inevitably must face that ultimate internal question: to succumb to complete opportunism as a price of maintaining their rule, or risk sacrificing themselves for the sake of the orthodox ethic."

    ~Muad'Dib: The Religious Issues"
    by the Princess Irulan

     

    1. +100 to Pope Francis. +20 to Michael B for quoting Herbert's Dune trilogy.

      That was the first time I ran across the notion that putting politics and religion in the same cart is a really bad idea, but also unstoppable under the right (or wrong) leadership.

      Also, Herbert's work was the first time I read that all religion is political to some degree; but individual devotees must consciously decide which policies/politics are compatible with their religious beliefs.

      Our country's founders knew all this; hence, the "separation of church and state" incorporated into the founding documents.

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

257 readers online now

Newsletter

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