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
December 22, 2014 12:50 AM UTC

Monday Open Thread

  • 46 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

"A proverb is no proverb to you until life has illustrated it."

–John Keats

Tweet
Share

Comments

46 thoughts on “Monday Open Thread”

  1. It's amazing how conservatives consider Obama so inept and useless until something happens that they don't agree with, then it's "Look at what Obama did all by himself!"

      1. I don't know if any of you caught 60 Minutes last night, but Senator Coburn – whom I never agree with on policy – had some very kind words for the President. "Very good man".  "Proud America elected him".   Why is it that politicians only get the cajones to speak truth publicly when they're headed out the door?  There had to be a few TeaParty heads exploding as they were watching his public praise of POTUS.

        1. Because they no longer eat dinner in each other's homes.  For serious.

          As corrupt and "back-room" as DC used to be, they hunted, read, traveled, ate, played cards, etc, across party lines.  It's hard to demonize the guy who served you potatoes the night before.

          1. Absolutely agree, PCat.  I wish we'd return the Senate back to those days.  I wish we'd also start demanding that our House members do half their work from their home offices.  Let's put our technology to work and let them have virtual committee meetings.  Every citizen has a chance to meet his Rep locally – and it would force the oligarch's to spend a fortune flying their lobbyists around to 50 states as opposed to having them concentrated in one spot.

            1. This reminds me of a story I read about V.P. Biden. His first wife and daughter were killed in a car accident between November when he was elected to Congress and January when he would take his seat. He seriously thought about relinquishing the office due to the long hours and commute it would require as he would have to continue raising his children as a single parent. Members from both Houses and their wives (they were almost all men at that time) came forward with offers of help: to pick the children up from school, give them dinner and even keep them overnight if Sen. Biden couldn't get home in time to do those things. I can't imagine that sort of camaraderie in this day and age.

        2. To be fair, let's include, among those discovering cojones on their way out, President Obama who is suddenly taking all kinds of decisive actions now that he's in the home stretch, can no longer lose an election himself and can no longer have any affect on the make up of the congress he'll be dealing with one way or the other. 

          1. I read an interesting piece on this over the weekend that talked about how 'the chains are off' and he no longer has to wrestle with Reid (or the DSCC)  about weighing every decision as to how it would affect Mary Landrieu & Co.'s reelection.  Reportedly the caucuses in both chambers have agreed to lock down on his vetos – meaning the Repubs won't get anything unless they want to play ball.  Ironically, it looks like his remaining policy wishes have a better chance of seeing the light of day while progressives are a minority in both chambers.  It's going to be an interesting two years, indeed.

             

            1. Not so ironic considering that he never got along at all well with his own party in congress, dissing them from the beginning with the old "extremists on both sides" crap while naively seeming to believe for years, all evidence to the contrary, that he could charm some cooperation out of the party whose publicly sworn official policy was to allow him no hint of a victory on anything and that, in fact, any cooperation was basically party treason.

              I wish him the best in accomplishing whatever positive things he can in his remaining two years and am glad if it's true that Dems in congress are more willing to back him up on his vetoes than he ever was willing to back up his congressional Dems. If true, Senate and House Dems must have deemed it to be in their best interest so we don't have to worry about too many Dem defections to sustain Presidential vetoes even though there's not much love lost between them and 2016 is coming right up.

              Maybe they see now that treating Obama and all accomplishments connected with his policies as toxic waste wasn't a winning strategy?  Because nothing would say, as they seemed to throughout the 2014 elections, we disapprove of Obama almost as much as real Republicans do, like going over to the dark side to erase his vetoes.

            2. I read another, similar article — something about the "least lame duck President — the point was also made that President Obama has a brief window, six months maybe, to finally accomplish his priorities using the executive decision manner.  After that, such actions will undoubtedly impinge on the various 2016 campaigns, which will become a type of new set of handcuffs to actions. 

        3. He praised him on 60 Minutes but has obstructed almost everything he tried to do and lied about his policies in every outlet available to him. 

          Tom Coburn used the filibuster and unanimous consent to abuse our democracy and stifle the president. R's filibustered their own judicial nominees, the Surgeon General nominee, the Secretary of Defense nominee, 9/11 responders, and on and on and on.

          The only more polished liar in the US Senate is Hatch of Utah and the fact that Coburn earned your praise for a teevee interview after all the damage he's done on the floor of the senate proves his skill.

          1. That wasn't my point, Zap.  I understand the damage he inflicted upon the Senate – and his stunt on blocking the funding for Vets was terrible.   Reagan and O'Neil weren't exactly BFF's by day, either.  The problem is these boys and girls are held hostage by a system – a system controlled by money, think tanks and media in DC.  I won't apologize for giving praise where praise is due.  I was sitting with my parents eating dinner while this played – and trust me, hearing those words made them uncomfortable (that was a good thing) – and sparked a conversation we couldn't have had otherwise.  My praise for his words doesn't compromise how I think, feel or act.  I'm a 1% in Wray; the 'progressive' 1%.  Living in this environment makes me appreciate things that others may well dismiss. 

  2. A modest proposal for the Democrats in the legislature.

    Proposing legislation to cut the state income rate to 4.62%.

    1. Cuts the Republicans off at the knees. They will argue that it is not enough, but they cannot vote against a tax cut.
    2. The Democrats will be able to crow: We cut your taxes!
    3. Helps solve the TABOR refund problem.
    4. Is financial mouse nuts.
    5. Sends a positive signal to businesses thinking about moving to Colorado.

    1. I disagree. We just got out of lean times where a higher tax rate might have prevented some pretty serious cuts. Thanks to TABOR we don't have the luxury of easy tax increases; cutting tax rates will lead to a more severe shortage when the next recession comes.

      2. That’s right. Thanks to Doug Bruce, any tax cut requires a vote to raise if circumstances change. Need to do annual refunds or rebates instead of Cuts.

        2. Not sure what good winning elections with lousy policy really does. After all, we can get lousy policy without all the bother and expense of trying to win elections. And I'm no purist. But at a certain point, what's the difference

          I don't believe we have to be head up our ass conservatives to beat head up their ass conservatives.  Lots of  progressive economic policy already polls better. Most progressive social policy polls better. The majority doesn't agree with the right's foreign policy via endless war. The problem is those majorities that poll in our favor don't know they agree with us and not with conservatives on all those things.  Dems just have to stop cowering and ceding messaging to conservatives.

  3. Fascinating, well sourced bringing together of all we know about the Panetta review. Combined with today's Post editorial (the Post being a right leaning newspaper that endorsed Gardner over Udall) which clearly states the central problem, that whether or not you think torture was justified, clearly the techniques used meet the definition of torture and clearly torture is and was at the time unambiguously illegal, sweeping all this under the rug with no prosecutions becomes less and less credible. At the same time the crisis that would be created by such prosecution, which would have to go all the way up the chain of command and couldn't, with any justice or credibility, be confined to a few nobodies supposedly "overstepping" would make Watergate look a minor blip on the national screen by comparison. Here's an excerpt from late in the article and a link to the whole thing, well worth reading. So's the Post ed.

    But in his farewell address on the Senate floor, Udall shed new light on what exactly the summaries say. He said that the Panetta Review acknowledges that the agency had, in fact, provided inaccurate information to lawmakers and administration officials, an allegation made in the Senate report. In contrast, the CIA’s official response denies that it engaged in this cycle of misinformation.

    Perhaps most importantly, Udall said the Panetta Review undercuts — from within the agency — the CIA’s own staunchest defense of the torture program. The agency's official position is that enhanced interrogation techniques were effective and did produce valuable intelligence. But according to Udall’s statement, the Panetta Review acknowledges that torture didn’t yield the kind of valuable information the CIA claims it did.

    “The Panetta Review further describes how detainees provided intelligence prior to the use of torture against them. It describes how the CIA –- contrary to its own representations -– often tortured detainees before trying any other approach. It describes how the CIA tortured detainees even when less coercive methods were yielding intelligence,” Udall said. “The Panetta Review further identifies cases in which the CIA used coercive techniques when it had no basis for determining whether a detainee had critical intelligence at all.”

    “In other words,” Udall continued, “CIA personnel tortured detainees to confirm they didn’t have intelligence — not because they thought they did.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/22/panetta-review-cia_n_6334728.html

    1. Whatever your opinions on its effectiveness – and that seems much in doubt – in the end, what we did was torture. We've prosecuted foreigners for war crimes for committing the same offenses, and we should hold our own citizens accountable by the same standard.

      I'm sure many of the people who have committed torture in the past have felt similarly justified in its use – and the United States has stood firmly against them because torture is just plain wrong. We need to do the same now.

      1. We have also prosecuted our own citizens for the crime of torture in both military and civilian courts.  Not only do the laws exist but so do at least a hundred years of American legal precedent for enforcing them. It's pretty awkward, to say the least. And, given the history of new regimes coming in and prosecuting outgoing leaders in third world "democracies", it's no wonder the Obama administration wanted and still wants no part of prosecuting members of the administration they replaced. That doesn't change the undeniable reality that the previous administration, at the highest levels, clearly broke the law and members do deserve prosecution.  

        Like the mess the Cheney/Bush administration created by using 9/11 as a pretext for invading Iraq with catastrophic, irreversible and entirely unnecessary destabilizing consequences, this Cheney/Bush mess also leaves us with nothing but highly unfortunate options. What an unmitigated disaster on every front, foreign and domestic, the Cheney/Bush years really were is pretty astounding. Tricky Dick had nothing on these worthless SOBs. If there is ever a worse administration than the one we were cursed with at the dawn of the 21st century, it's hard to imagine anything resembling the United States of America as created by our constitution surviving at all.

        Thanks a lot, Sandra Day O'Connor. It all started with bloodless coup made possible your swing vote. Are there enough shovels in the world to dig us out of the hole that the puppet masters of the sorry President that you joined in appointing started digging on that black day? We just have to hope so.

        2. And, it's past time to be prosecuting this latest batch of criminals

          Prosecute Torturers and Their Bosses

          "Mr. Obama has said multiple times that “we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards,” as though the two were incompatible. They are not. The nation cannot move forward in any meaningful way without coming to terms, legally and morally, with the abhorrent acts that were authorized, given a false patina of legality, and committed by American men and women from the highest levels of government on down.

          . . . 

          No amount of legal pretzel logic can justify the behavior detailed in the report. Indeed, it is impossible to read it and conclude that no one can be held accountable. At the very least, Mr. Obama needs to authorize a full and independent criminal investigation.

          . . . 

          "Starting a criminal investigation is not about payback; it is about ensuring that this never happens again and regaining the moral credibility to rebuke torture by other governments. Because of the Senate’s report, we now know the distance officials in the executive branch went to rationalize, and conceal, the crimes they wanted to commit. The question is whether the nation will stand by and allow the perpetrators of torture to have perpetual immunity for their actions."

           

          http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/opinion/prosecute-torturers-and-their-bosses.html?_r=0

          1. Agree but, especially in our present completely polarized state, I just don't think it's possible. Heck, the Watergate prosecutions leading to Nixon's resignation wouldn't be possible in today's world. 

            Can you imagine a single Republican in support? Even McCain, the only one with the guts and decency to oppose torture without reserve, would fight against prosecution involving the former Republican administration. The entire Obama hating, Fox loving political and public wing would fight it tooth and nail. Besides a few token firing/resignations and perhaps a a few lower echelon prosecutions at best, I don't see any chance for those responsible at the top of the food chain being prosecuted. Do you? Honestly?

            1. Ummmmm . . . . [shrugs] . . . . 

              . . . . . . . . 

              . . . . . . . .

              . . . . . . . . 

              (Well there was Lynndie England  . . . . .

              . . . . . . . . . the only sacrifice for Cheney's sins, I guess)

              . . . . . . . .

              no.

               

        3. Editing is such a chore here. Don't know how  words disappear.  It should (and I thought it did) say … the bloodless coup made possible by your swing vote.

  4. Blue America reminds that thanks to voters Blue Dogs in congress are almost completely extinct. The vote counts of true progressives who won their seats, while many Blue Dogs are newly unemployed, should impress even CPols' most inscrutable mathematical analyst.

    You already know it's been a tough year politically. Tough, especially, for the Democrats' DC Establishment party. Not quite so tough for progressives. Only one of our progressives was defeated, Carol Shea-Porter, who ran in a very red district– and who, I feel pretty certain, will be back in 2016 to reclaim her seat.

    …

    California's most successful state senator, Ted Lieu, approached the 18-person primary– and the Adelson-funded general election– talking about the progressive legislation that has been the hallmark of his political career. His very first ad was about stopping unconstitutional domestic spying on American citizens by the NSA and CIA. Ted beat the Adelson candidate, despite a vicious, racist campaign, 59.2% to 40.8% with the biggest turn-out of any of L.A.'s congressional districts. And, like Bonnie, he won it as an avowed, unapologetic progressive.

    The Blue Dog strategy may have made some sense at some point here in Colorado. It doesn't make sense any more (insert Harry Truman quote about real Republicans here. -ed.). The sooner our own Blue Dogs renounce what's left of their species the better off we'll all be.

    1. Analysis of vote counts for Dems who barely squeaked by and Progressive Dems who brought out the base.

      Turnout for the midterms in California was a dismal 42% this year. Barbara Lee (CA-13- Oakland) didn't have a real race, but her constituents turned out for her in greater numbers than any other congressional candidate in the whole state, more than any other Democrat and more than any Republican. 166,182 went to the polls to voice their gratitude for a congresswoman who stands up for working families. (In 2012 she was reelected with 250,436 votes and Obama won the district with 268,093 in 2012 and 283,183 in 2008.) The upper Midwest seems like an especially civic-minded area and Minnesota and Wisconsin always get good turnout. In Minnesota, for example, all the Democratic incumbents scored over 100,000 votes– a very different story than in most of the country. Keith Ellison led the way with 167,076 votes,a nice healthy midterm vote– although he had won reelection in 2012 with 262,102 votes. Similar story in Wisconsin, The Democratic incumbents all scored over 100,000, with Mark Pocan leading the way with 224,548, the biggest turnout anywhere in the whole country for any Democrat running for the House. His level of support was hardly down at all from 2012 when he won with 265,422 votes. What do these three Democrats have in common aside from loyal constituents? Pocan has the single most progressive voting record in the entire Congress. Ellison and Lee are two courageous, stalwart progressives who never hesitate to stand up loud and clear on behalf of the ordinary people who don't hire lobbyists. 

      You're not voting your district" if you're voting to give Citibank more protection from poor business decisions and more reason to gamble with taxpayers' money.

    1. This Pope is simply amazing. I can't get over it. I wouldn't give you two cents for all the Popes of my lifetime up until this one. This one's a keeper. May he live long and prosper.

  6. God Bless the Veterans Administration Staff – who deal with anxious, irritable, multiply-disabled veterans and families year after year during the stressful holidays, and (mostly) treat all  with compassion, respect, and dignity.

    That is all.

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

181 readers online now

Newsletter

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