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
September 11, 2015 06:25 AM UTC

9/11/2015 Open Thread

  • 46 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“The life of the dead is placed in the memory of the living.”

–Cicero

Tweet
Share

Comments

46 thoughts on “9/11/2015 Open Thread”

  1. Hey AC,

    Since you're going to be showing up here soon, Michael Bowman came up with this yesterday:

    I'm guessing these Texans are doing a booming business today…

    As we stand high up on the Hill of Megiddo looking down at the Plain of Megiddo where the Battle of Armageddon will soon take place, we can imagine the jet airplanes screaming overhead while the heavy tanks rumble through that natural theater of war – seven miles wide and fifteen miles long. We read the prophecies straight from the Bible as we stand on the very site where it will all soon come to pass.

    Now I know this is only one example but if you try to pass this off as a outlier everyone will laugh harder at you for the rest of the day.

    You contend that the Iran deal will cause nuclear war between Israel and Iran. Isn't this exactly what you and the Republican base want? 

    So what's the problem with the Iran deal again?

    2. Ac also said that Obamacare would bankrupt the country, that Benghazi would prevent Obama from being re-elected and on and on. He is a fool with no original thoughts, just his always wrong right wing talking points.

      1. AC and Moddy make these dire predictions because they miss the good old days of needless wars (Iraq 2003), misfeasance in exposing us to terrorist attacks (9/11), government incompetence during major disasters (Katrina 2005), massive deficits (2001-2008) and deep recessions with staggeringly high unemployment (2008).

        They need Republicans to gain office so that they can see their current predictions come true as well.  Just look at the examples in the GOP-controlled Congress and the GOP-led states as proof.  None of them can govern themselves out of a paper bag, and dang proud of it if they say so themselves!

      2. I was recently reminded of the hateful attacks and demonstrations in 2009 regarding the proposed Affordable Care Act, AND was reminded how difficult it must be to be a Republican these days. Oh, it's easy being angry, mean, and negative all the time, and dumbing everything down – the hard part is keeping your stories straight without a little nagging cognitive dissonance.

        Here's what happened: I attended a meeting promoting the proposed ColoradoCare plan, the one created and advocated by Dr/Senator Irene Aguilar, T.R. Reid, and others, for which they're gathering signatures for the 2016 ballot. One of our local naysaying Republicans (who no doubt railed against Obamacare in 2009) stood up at the meeting to rail against the proposed ColoradoCare, saying with her many health problems she likes the insurance she has now – insurance no doubt made possible by Obamacare! Painful irony – painful to all but the hypocritical and selfish who want good health coverage for themselves, and to hell with everyone else.

         

  2. Donald Trump is brilliant revenge: The GOP’s demise looks a lot like this

    Trump presents a crude version of these Movement Conservative themes. His vile language about minorities and women is simply a different octane of the Movement Conservative gasoline, an emotional explosive used by every one of the other sixteen candidates for the Republican nomination. It is a simple idea: that “takers” want a handout. Similarly, while observers have expressed surprised that the thrice-married, non-churchgoing Trump attracts more support from evangelical voters than, say, the aggressively religious Mike Huckabee, that support reflects a Movement Conservative pattern established a generation ago.

    But Trump’s danger to the Republican Party is not simply that he rips the veneer off the racism, sexism, and religious hypocrisy of Movement Conservatism, exposing its rhetoric about taxes and lazy takers for the elitism it is. Trump also articulates the anger of a generation of voters who see that they have been taken for a ride. Movement Conservatives promised voters who were falling behind in the modern world that if they voted Republican, tax cuts and a smaller government would create a roaring economy and they would prosper.

    1. Dana Milbank captures perfectly the triumph of Trump and the conundrum he represents to baffled Republican pols, even one as red meat adept as Cruz used to appear to be. The more Trump dumbs it down with his limited vocabulary the better that wing of the party loves him and tunes out the likes of a highly educated, debate champion elected pol even as wacko rightie as Cruz.  

      Always more purely fear, hate, bigotry and xenophobia based than policy based, always primarily anti-government, all of it, which GOP elected government officials didn't think through when they were so sure they could play these people just like they played the old religious right for decades, the Tea Party has found its perfect hero . 

      In Trump, who has complete credibility when he rails against the government, never having held any political office and who doesn't bother them with any of that boring policy stuff, they get nothing but pure unadulterated raw red meat just the way they like it.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-flounders-in-donald-trumps-shadow/2015/09/09/0f47bb24-5740-11e5-abe9-27d53f250b11_story.html

      1. Great article by Milbank. It shows how, unfortunately, entertainment grabs and holds popular attention over appeals to intellect. Trump is in the lead because he is a professional entertainment. He has levels of game that his fellow candidates will never have. It will probably be an ugly road to victory, with lots of thinly-veiled hate  and invective lining the road, but in the end, this will work out well for the Democrats. 

        I have to admit that I feel personally responsible for the rise of Ted Cruz. I served with him at the Undergraduate Student Government in college. I thought he was a nice guy; a bit conservative, but a nice guy. So I worked with him. In my defense, if I'd had any inkling of what he would become, I would have taken action to pour some cold water on his political aspirations.

        Another good article on Cruz' ridiculous appeal to his Tea Party base:

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lawbreaker-kim-davis-and-the-lawless-ted-cruz/2015/09/04/fd63c660-5333-11e5-9812-92d5948a40f8_story.html 

  3. Worth noting that jack-booted militia thugs from Oath Keepers are now in Rowan County, KY, to "protect" Kim Davis in case she violates her release conditions and the judge wants to return her to jail.

      1. The government made a huge mistake there. Yes, they should have avoided on the spot violence but arrests should have come later at a less incendiary time under more manageable circumstances.

      1. Can you imagine any other Senator, VP and possible presidential candidate being this absolutely, spontaneously and nakedly honest, so emotionally exposed in a major network TV appearance? Or ever? Anywhere vaguely public? I sometimes wonder if upper echelon pols are ever that way anywhere with anyone, including their closest loved ones. This interview made me sad that there is so little possibility that this good, strong, loving, devoted man will jump in after all. Makes me wish his studied polar opposite in every way, HRC, would implode today. Like right this minute.

        I think a world with Francis as Pope and Joe as President would be a much better place.

        2. BC, my heart agrees with you, but my head says HRC has the much better chance of keeping any of the GOP disasters-in-waiting from locking up the last branch of government to implement their outrageously wrong-headed agenda.

          1. Maybe. I'm not convinced the GOP won't go with a usual suspect type when all is said and done.  I'm not convinced that, if they do, she's a winner.

            I see her campaign making exactly the same mistakes it made going against Obama. I think she and her devotees have been in their bubble of arrogant, entitled, inevitability for so long nothing penetrates.

            HRC has always placed all the blame for any set back on others never accepting an iota of responsibility for Bill when he was President or for herself since. Even her latest weak as possible 'I'm sorry" doesn't acknowledge that her mixing personal and official e-mails in one account was poor judgement, just that it led to confusion and controversy and an opening for the conspiracy against her despite the fact that it was allowed and perfectly fine. If everything is your enemies fault, if there's never anything wrong with anything you are responsible for, there's nothing you need to change. Just keep telling people it's all your mean enemies fault.

            With that mind set, a mind set that hasn't changed in decades I don't believe her campaign will get any smarter and I don't believe she can win unless they do and/or she is blessed with a completely unelectable opponent. I'm not confident that's what's going to happen.

            1. That's fair, and to a certain degree, I concur.  But as long as the GOP race is commanding most of the attention, it is hard to say what impact all that will have on her electability.

              If she wins, then the characteristics you point out will be highly relevant.  But I see all our past presidents with their various flaws, whether Democratic or Republican, and on balance we were much better off with a Democrat, flaws and all, than a Republican, flaws and all.

              While Biden is by far a better person, and absolutely does have the experience to be an excellent President, he would need a huge outpouring of support (not to mention from his family and in his own heart) to pull together a winning campaign, something he has tried and failed to do twice before.

              While the choice between the better of two Angels would be nice to have, I'm ready to pick the lesser of two evils (metaphorically, of course).

                  1. Of course. I think that’s the real point. You can’t change the public perception by, in effect, announcing that your candidate will now perform, warmth, naturalness and humor at a particular time and place. Watch for it on Ellen. Everyone will be looking for phoniness and the candidate will be more self conscious and unnatural than ever.

        3. I had the honor of being on two White House calls where the VP led a discussion on health care, backed by Nuns on the Bus, Sister Simone. His talk was frank, raw and dead-on.  I'd crawl over broken glass to support his campaign if he'd jump in.  Anytime our dos idiotas refer to him in an unflattering manner I have a visceral reaction.  Like you, BC, I concur: this world would be a better, safer, more just place with Joe and Francis' combined influence. 

  5. Read this article yesterday on the EPA's proposed emissions regulations. Decent reporting. Lowering emissions has undeniable health benefits. It also has undeniable economic impacts. The way forward isn't about deciding which interests trump (pardon the pun; under Trump, we'd have mini Atlantic City's popping up in every oil and gas town). It's about public/private partnership to use natural gas to transition from fossil fuels to renewables. There will be pain, but let's spread the pain around and not concentrate it in only some communities.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/epa-smog-rule-battle-lines-drawn-in-poor-communities-213481

    1. You do realize, don't you, that your moniker is a constant reminder that you aren't anything that you purport to be, and thus undermine any support you might otherwise gather to your cause?

    2. You may want to run your copy by someone else in the office before you post again.

      Here's the lie you were supposed to tell:

      Although it's critical that we make a transition away from fossil fuels, we must make that transition in a responsible way that allows us to be more focused on the environment while also preserving the ability of businesses and the people who work for them to thrive.  The best way to do that is by transitioning first to natural gas, which will allow us to rein in emissions while ensuring the continuing strength of our economy.

      Here's what you literally just said:

      We need to balance the interests of people making money with the reality that emissions hurt and kill people.

      That's not a joke.  Read what you just wrote.  You just said that people having healthy lives doesn't Trump™ making a buck. The boss is going to be mad.

    4. Here's what they think of natural gas in North Dakota:

       

      Yes, that's so called flare off. "Waste" natural gas from the ND oil fields. A perfect example of energy company conservation.

      If we somehow were to "transition" to natural gas, how would the Koch brothers take it?. The energy yield from burning carbon depends on the number of carbon bonds oxidized. Natural gas is less efficient per unit of carbon than coal. True, you don't get the lead, sulfur, arsenic, cadmium etc. pollutants that you get from coal, but you do get just as much CO2 and just as much global warming.

      The way to transition is to convert from fossil fuels to renewable fuels as quickly and as completely as possible. And what is possible is a lot faster than going through natural gas.

       

       

      1. Yet another reason why MB4CO can't be taken seriously…

         

        Suffrage, Saran Wrap and Shoe Boxes

         

        Cheap gas is giving us a plethora of societal challenges, not the least of which is situations like the one in the Bakken Field in North Dakota:  $100 million worth of energy going up in flames every month.  The culprit: "cheap gas."  Our "free market" has failed; there is no rational economic argument for capturing this finite resource and converting it to a product under free market principles.  Instead of the market’s doing what it is supposed to do, industry dominance in the political sphere – both at the state and federal levels – subverts these market signals. This profligate display of American waste can be seen from satellites in space; from space, the state of North Dakota now lights up like a major metropolitan city.

        My paternal grandmother often said, "none of us can be as dumb as all of us."  

        Let that soak in for just a moment:  $100 million worth of energy up in flames.  Each and every month.  Because cheap gas can't make the case for innovation or conservation.  If Mrs. Hickenlooper, Mrs. Harpole or Mrs. Bowman were running this "household" – someone's arse would be subjected to the washing stick and then be grounded.  This waste alone would supplant the proposed cuts [$4 billion over five years] to children's nutrition in the Senate version of the Farm Bill.

         

    6. What a waste of a headline. Battle lines? Those are being purposely constructed by the usual suspects who have no doubt made a significant ad buy with Politico to steer them toward these outliers.  The same old, tired predictions that never come to fruition, full of "…who worry", "might", "could" and every other squishy word they can find.  In the case of one of your initial posts, the Democratic outliers who are being quoted by the Koch shadow group happen to be our Governor and Senator. Same song, different singers. They no doubt have made the political calculations regarding their positions, but they defy arithmetic.  

      The economic costs of inaction are not in the best interest of our economy, and history has proven time and time again that moving towards a cleaner environment is good for jobs and our economy.  Yes, there are displacements.  In the case of the leaders in St. Louis and and Pittsburgh, those issues could be easily addressed with tax incentives for retraining, establishing enterprise zones, etc.  I recall that POTUS had offered a billion-dollar climate mitigation program in his last budget – an idea soundly rejected by the TeaBillies. (you might remember we had a similar proposal in the CoLeg is past year, defeated by Senate Republicans).  

      If Pittsburgh is betting its future on the Marcellus Shale, the city's leadership is already in the early stages of implosion. 

      Natural gas is a bridge to nowhere, but you already know that. If we're going to rise to meet the extraordinary challenges of our climate 75% of the carbon in the ground has to stay there.  We'll manage just fine, keeping our showers hot and our beer cold with new technologies – those that convert the infinite power of the sun, wind, biomass and geothermal resources into cheap, plentiful energy supplies.  And we'll create better paying and more stable jobs in the process.  

      PS: Koch, Inc and the Republicans couldn’t give a rats ass about poor people. They are disposable pawns on their quest for ‘more’

       

      1. Michael, you're spot on- Politico and its "Morning Energy" feature is very much in the tank for the Koch Bros. Darren Goode, the author of the Politico article MB4Koch referred to, is definitely pimping for Council on Regulatory Solutions.

        Here's Goode's 6/12/15 piece, in which he is so very concerned about the ozone regulations, and cites CRS.

        A quote :

        The main beef Republicans and other critics have is the hundreds or more of counties that would violate the tougher standard, many of whom still struggle to meet the current standard that was just fully implemented this year. Penalties for noncomplying areas may include loss of federal highway dollars and restrictions on growth, manufacturing and construction, not to mention tougher permitting and pollution control requirements. Read a backgrounder from committee Republicans: http://1.usa.gov/1Bax0LI

        Here's another Politico piece, posted 1/14/14  by Alex Guillen, which also cites the CRS:

        NEW SMALL BIZ INITIATIVE GOES AFTER REGULATORY PROCESS: The Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council will launch a new initiative today aimed at making the regulatory process 'more open and transparent to ensure that regulators listen and respond to the concerns of small business owners,' according to SBEC President and CEO Karen Kerrigan. The new Center for Regulatory Solutions will push regulatory process reforms and work to cut down on what the group calls overregulation, a consistent polling concern from small business owners. The group is also targeting the so-called 'sue and settle' tactic critics have long said environmental groups are using as a back-door way to impose new regulations. CRS website: http://bit.ly/1gCBvQv

        Darren Goode reported on 6/16/14 that "Kochs Launch New SuperPAC", including this slam on Koch critics:

        Democrats are sure to seize on the new Freedom Partners super PAC as yet more fodder in their mounting campaign to caricature the brothers as evil puppeteers manipulating Republicans.

        Goode's recent  piece extensively quotes Freedom Partners, a Koch entity, which is odd because generally Koch entities are reluctant to be quoted in the press. Goode apparently has unfettered access. Politico values its status as a "neutral" political news magazine, but if its reporters are tied, or at the least biased towards  the Kochs, this should be disclosed.

         

    1. adverb

      1.in the literal or strict sense: She failed to grasp the metaphor and interpreted the poem literally.
      What does the word mean literally?

      2.in a literal manner; word for word:
      to translate literally.

      3.actually; without exaggeration or inaccuracy:
      The city was literally destroyed.

      4.in effect; in substance; very nearly; virtually:
      I literally died when she walked out on stage in that costume.

      Lowering emissions has undeniable health benefits. It also has undeniable economic impacts. The way forward isn't about deciding which interests trump

      “Literally” has many meanings (see 3, 4). Sorry I English better than you.

    3. Perhaps not technically but it's spot on about your message. The same tired old message. The same mind set that puts actuaries to work deciding how much it would cost to save x number of lives and whether the pay out in suits for the deaths would be cheaper than the cost of saving those lives in the first place. If the answer is, it costs less to let those deaths happen and pay possible suits then no action will be taken to prevent those deaths. It's only when the outcry hurts the bottom line that protections are put into place, cars or other products recalled. That's why we need regulations based on our well being and future, not on the cost of death according to a company or industry’s actuaries.

  7. Things To Do in the greater Denver area this weekend:

    See me and my photography at the opening reception of my first gallery show. The Showcase Gallery above the Central City Visitors Center has just opened a show titled "Wild Life in the Mountains", featuring me and two other Gilpin County nature photographers. The opening reception is tomorrow (Saturday the 12th) from 1pm-3pm. The gallery is on the 2nd floor of the Visitors Center in Central, 103 Eureka Street.

    This is part of my evil master plan to take over Gilpin County arts. Next weekend is our annual Art Studio Tour, where I will have photos at four separate stops along the tour, plus two local coffee shops.

  9. Man, it's getting hard to keep up with all the stupid coming from the GOP candidates!

    Just yesterday, Mike Huckabee, in defending Kim Davis' defiance of the Supreme Court, thinks the only reason blacks in America vote and aren't slaves on the plantation is because we simply choose not to enforce the Dred Scott decision:

    From The Hill:

    “Michael, the Dred Scott decision of 1857 still remains to this day the law of the land, which says that black people aren’t fully human,” Huckabee told radio show host Michael Medved. “Does anybody still follow the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision?”Gee, I don't know Mike, maybe because, like, it was overturned by the 14th amendment?

    Gee, I don't know Mike, maybe because, like, it was overturned by the 14th amendment?

    1. The scary thing is he really believes it and this moron was a Governor. He really doesn't get that when the Supreme Curt overturns something it is no longer law. It doesn't have to be repealed by any legislative body as he believes.  It doesn't become the the state's or the federal government's responsibility to correct it with new legislation before the judgement goes into effect as he believes. It simply no longer stands as law once the Court declares it to be unconstitutional.  Why doesn't he get this? He's old enough to have gone to school when civics was still being taught? What on earth is the matter with this guy? And why do talking heads, after gently trying to explain to him that he's wrong, give up and let him get away with presenting his totally erroneous views as a possibly valid opinion? 

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

84 readers online now

Newsletter

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