Get More Smarter on Wednesday (Nov. 25)

MoreSmarter-ThanksgivingIf you can make it to the break room and back without seeing another person, you have our permission to go home (after you read this). It’s time to Get More Smarter with Colorado Pols. If you think we missed something important, please include the link in the comments below (here’s a good example).


► State Sen. Tim Neville (R-Jefferson County) has been fairly quiet since he began campaigning for U.S. Senate a few months ago. Yesterday, Neville took time off from dialing for dollars to join the fear-mongering parade on Syrian refugees with a scary fundraising email. Perhaps Neville is taking a cue from Republican Presidential candidate Marco Rubio, who said over the weekend that the Paris terrorist attacks were a “positive development.” Sure, a lot of innocent people were killed, but it’s not all bad if it helps you raise money for your campaign!

BTW, if you had any concerns that Neville might get squishy on his fervent anti-choice beliefs…well, you need not worry. Nobody is going to be flanking Neville on the right when it comes to abortion.


► You may have heard of the (cough-cough) “bipartisan” group of former Colorado lawmakers pushing for changes in Colorado’s reapportionment/redistricting process. What you haven’t been hearing from some of the cheerleading media outlets in Colorado is that Initiative 55 is a jumbled mess of a policy proposal. Colorado voters shouldn’t be asked to vote on a crayon drawing.

Get even more smarter after the jump…


Neville Not “Buckpedaling” on Abortion

(Tim Neville aims to dominate Thanksgiving table talk – Promoted by Colorado Pols)

State Sen. Tim Neville.

State Sen. Tim Neville.

“My name is Tim Neville, and I’m THE pro-Life candidate running for the nomination to take on and defeat Democrat Michael Bennet in November 2016.”

That’s how Neville, who’s considered the frontrunner in the GOP Senate primary, describes himself in a recent fundraising email.

And judging from the email (excerpt below), it’s hard to imagine there’s a more anti-choice candidate anywhere on the planet.

Neville even confirms that the Live at Conception Act is a personhood bill, something Sen. Cory Gardner was willfully confused about.

In contrast to Gardner, who was obviously worried women would revolt against his history of Neville-like positions on abortion, Neville brags that “politicians in both parties” opposed his bill that would have “forced abortion providers to offer women the opportunity to see an ultrasound, saving thousands of babies in the process.” (Translation: women would be required to have an ultrasound prior to having an abortion.)

We know Republicans in Colorado like to modify their positions once they face a general-election audience. See, for example, Gardner, Rep. Mike Coffman, Bob Beauprez, Rep. Ken “Buckpedal” Buck.

But unlike those guys, you get the feeling that Neville really  believes he can win over both primary and general election voters by being himself, regardless of the issue. That will set him apart from recent state-wide Republican candidates. That would make things interesting.


Slow Down! Initiative 55 (Redistricting) Is a Rough Draft, Not a Real Policy Fix

Pump the brakes!

Pump the brakes!

Redistricting. Reapportionment. Gerrymandering. Big words that create big problems.

There is no political or policy issue that is not affected by the re-drawing of legislative and congressional districts every 10 years. A truly representative democracy requires that we regularly adjust local “boundaries” in an effort to create a responsive and responsible government that reflects our ever-changing demographics.

In an ideal world, these boundaries would always be drawn in a competitively-balanced manner so as not to give an unfair advantage to any particular community, interest group, or political party. In the real world, this is akin to trying to take “politics” out of politics.

A new group of current and former lawmakers is pushing for a change to Colorado’s political map-making process. The proposal – known already as Initiative 55 – has some bipartisan support but is largely backed by Republicans such as former Governor Bill Owens (R), former Secretaries of State Donetta Davidson (R) and Gigi Dennis (R), and former House Speaker Frank McNulty (R). In fact, Initiative 55 should look pretty familiar to partisan Republicans: Much of the map-drawing requirements in Initiative 55 is comparable to a Republican redistricting attempt in 2004 that was ultimately repealed in 2010.

The primary talking point for the Initiative 55 group is that their proposal will hand over the map-making process to “nonpartisan experts,” which (in theory) would put a stop to gerrymandering. This smells like a good idea that has gained traction in other parts of the country, but what are the other ingredients that make up this political sausage? We don’t disagree that our current map-making process needs to be adjusted, but as we read through the draft language for “Initiative 55,” we found ourselves pumping the policy brakes on numerous occasions. For example:

♦ Initiative 55 would essentially make it impossible for minority groups to increase their voting power. In fact, the language specifically prohibits crafting district boundaries “for the purpose of augmenting or diluting the voting strength of a language or racial minority group.” This is one of several sections that would appear to be unconstitutional from the start.

Initiative 55 upends some critical redistricting criteria in a way that actually makes it more difficult to craft competitive boundaries. The draft language outlines a few specific redistricting factors in a very specific order; the result is that “competitiveness” and “communities of interest” would become the least important considerations in redistricting. Initiative 55 supporters say that map makers would be “required” to draw competitive seats under this plan, but it would appear that they missed their own fine print.

♦ Metropolitan counties with large populations will still be carved up into several districts, but under Initiative 55, counties can be split even if they divide minority communities or other communities of interest.

♦ One of the stranger quirks in the language of Initiative 55 is related to the tie-breaking process for the Redistricting Commission. If the Commission cannot agree on a particular map and becomes deadlocked, the default solution is to go back to the first map presented by Commission staff – no matter how flawed or misguided it may have been. If the Commission can’t agree on later versions of a redistricting map, the law would require that they formally submit the first draft to the Colorado Supreme Court for approval.

♦ Here’s another weird quirk: In the event that staff “is unable to present initial plans to the commission,” Initiative 55 would allow the staff to draw district lines and directly present them to the Supreme Court for approval (Initiative 55 doesn’t explain what kind of “event” would prohibit staff from meeting with the Commission). In other words, a handful of unnamed “staff members” could somehow skip this entire process and do the map-drawing by themselves. 

Colorado could certainly benefit from a change to its reapportionment and redistricting process, and there may be some seeds of thought in the draft language of Initiative 55 that should be examined further. As it stands currently, however, Initiative 55 is more of a rough first draft than a carefully-considered policy proposal. When you skip the details and rush past the fine print, you risk enacting a policy that ends up doing the opposite of whatever was intended.

Colorado can absolutely lead the way and show the rest of the country how best to deal with re-drawing legislative boundaries…but let’s slow down and get this right, first.

Get More Smarter on Tuesday (Nov. 24)

MoreSmarter-ThanksgivingWe’re planning out our tryptophan coma dreams early this year. It’s time to Get More Smarter with Colorado Pols! If you think we missed something important, please include the link in the comments below (here’s a good example).


► Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is in Colorado today, making stops in Denver and Boulder as part of a trip that involves both raising money and “mobilizing” Colorado Democrats.

► But if you attend a Donald Trump rally, you may be taking your life into your own hands.

► Speaking of Trump, he may be in danger of losing his so-far lead in the upcoming Iowa caucuses to Sen. Ted Cruz. Might Iowa change the course of Cruz’s also-ran campaign, or make itself irrelevant? Cruz says it’s the former, with feeling.

Get even more smarter after the jump…


Hillary Clinton in Colorado Today

Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton

Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is spending some time in Colorado today. As John Frank reports for the Denver Post:

The former secretary of state will speak at 11:30 a.m. at the Boulder Theatre in downtown Boulder and travel later in the day to Denver for a 3:15 p.m. event at Manual High School. The trip also includes a private fundraising event at the Boulder home of Mo Siegel, one of the founders of Celestial Seasonings.

Clinton’s visit to Colorado is the second in four months and comes weeks after rival Bernie Sanders drew an estimated 9,000 to a rally in Boulder. In June, the Vermont senator brought nearly 5,000 people to the University of Denver.

The Clinton campaign said the two events Tuesday are designed to mobilize Democratic activists ahead of the state’s March 1 caucuses. The campaign said Clinton will “discuss the issues that keep Coloradans up at night” but declined to offer specific. Her remarks at an  August event in Denver focused on the economy and the protection of women’s rights.


State Sen. Crowder sides with Hickenlooper on Syrian refugee policy

Sen. Larry Crowder.

Sen. Larry Crowder.

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

State Sen. Larry Crowder (R-Alamosa) has sided with Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper in arguing that Colorado should still welcome Syrian refugees to the state, despite calls by some state lawmakers to ban them from coming here.

Rocky Mountain Community Radio’s Bente Birkeland reports:

Republican State Sen. Larry Crowder of Alamosa says Colorado and the country should not change the refugee resettlement program in the wake of the Paris attacks.

He was one of 10 Republicans not to sign the letter [asking Gov. John Hickenlooper to block Syrian refugees from coming to the state]. He says politicians are reacting with fear.

“When you talk about people who drop everything that they had and run for their lives, what we need to do is start realizing what our responsibility as a world citizen is,” [said Crowder].

Listen here. 

Birkeland mentioned that Hickenlooper supports the existing two-year vetting process for Syrian refugees.

Get More Smarter on Monday (Nov. 23)

MoreSmarter-ThanksgivingNope, we can’t spell Osweiler without looking it up first; perhaps next week. It’s time to Get More Smarter with Colorado Pols. If you think we missed something important, please include the link in the comments below (here’s a good example).


► Colorado Attorney General Cynthia “Sues-a-Lot” Coffman has asked the Colorado Supreme Court to dismiss a complaint from Gov. John Hickenlooper over lawsuits the Governor says have been filed without his approval.

Hickenlooper petitioned the state Supreme Court on Nov. 4 after he complained that Coffman should not have joined about two dozen other states in suing the Environmental Protection Agency over new air pollution rules without his authorization.

Coffman said the rules are an illegal overreach. The governor supports the rules and is trying to implement them.

Hickenlooper is asking the court to force Coffman to withdraw lawsuits against the federal government that were filed without his permission, including one in Wyoming over fracking rules, one in North Dakota over clean water rules and the latest in Washington, D.C., over the EPA’s air pollution rules.

If the Governor does not back down, Coffman is threatening to force Colorado into a lawsuit against the entire galaxy.


► We’re still in 2015, but the 2016 Presidential election has been strikingly fact-free, as Chris Cillizza writes for “The Fix”:

Candidates have always done their best to bend numbers, statistics and stories to make themselves look as good — or as not-bad — as possible. But, there was almost always a line that wasn’t crossed in years past, a sort of even-partisans-can-agree-on-this standard.

Now, thanks in large part to Donald Trump’s candidacy, that line has been smudged out of existence. Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s famous quote that “you are entitled to your own opinion…but you are not entitled to your own facts” is no longer operative in this election. That is to the detriment of not only the people running for president in 2016 but to all of us.

Trump’s latest foray into the fiction zone came on Saturday when he told a group of supporters that he watched as “thousands of people were cheering” in Jersey City, New Jersey when the World Trade Center towers collapsed after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. On Sunday, Trump called into ABC’s “This Week” and got into a back and forth with moderator George Stephanopoulos over that claim. The exchange is long but worth printing in full.

You’ll have to click the link to read Trump’s bizarre claims, but it’s definitely worth exercising your mouse finger.


Get even more smarter after the jump…


Radio Host Filing Lawsuits Because of…Wait, What?

(Raise your hand if you are surprised that Dan Caplis is involved — Promoted by Colorado Pols)

After using his radio show, a newspaper column, and misinformation to whip up anger against a peaceful East High School protest last year, KNUS radio host Dan Caplis is now apparently suing the Denver Public Schools, city officials, DPS teachers/administrators, or possibly even students, because he thinks they are somehow responsible for the random and tragic injury to a Denver police officer that occurred after the East-High demonstration.

The issue came up recently, when KNUS host Craig Silverman told Caplis he wasn’t sure if they could discuss the issue on air, presumably due to a lawsuit. And a frequent KNUS listener told me he’s heard Caplis mention that he’s representing the police officer.


Six Degrees of Benghazi, with Rep. Ken Buck

Hee-hee. I get to press buttons.

Hee-hee. I get to press buttons.

Via Talking Points Memo, here’s Colorado Rep. Ken Buck (R-Greeley) trying to connect the wrong dots:

Colorado Republican Rep. Ken Buck on Thursday blamed the President’s handling of the 2011 terrorist attack in Benghazi for Americans’ distrust of Syrian refugees today.

In a back-and-forth with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Leon Rodriguez, Buck argued that no one should be surprised Americans are deeply concerned about refugees considering the way Obama handled the aftermath of the Benghazi attacks.

“One of the reasons Americans are distrustful at this point. We have a president who after the murder of an ambassador in Benghazi and the murder of three heroes in Benghazi…told the American people that the attack was the result of a video,” Buck said. “You have a secretary of state that immediately identified that it was not the result of a video — that it was that it was a result of a well-planned attack.”

We suppose it’s unavoidable that some Republican politicians will reflexively scream “Benghazi!” whenever they are discussing any foreign policy matter, but come on, Ken! This is silly even for you.

Steve Benen of MSNBC tries to figure out what Buck is trying to say here. It’s complicated:

Initially, I took this to mean that Buck was conflating terrorists in Libya and refugees from Syria, but that’s not it.

Rather, the Colorado Republican was endorsing far-right Benghazi conspiracy theories, which leads him to believe the White House covered up some imaginary scandal, which then leads him to believe Americans don’t trust the administration, which then leads Buck to believe Benghazi is indirectly responsible for creating public hostility towards refugees from an entirely different country.

Could you connect the Paris terrorist attacks to Benghazi in six steps or less? Probably. Could you connect the Paris attacks to actor Kevin Bacon in six steps or less? Probably.

Maybe it’s Kevin Bacon’s fault!

(h/t to DawnPatrol)

Mike Coffman Has Now Voted Six Times to Defund Planned Parenthood

(But that doesn’t mean he won’t still use their logo in a campaign ad! Promoted by Colorado Pols)

If you read Rep. Mike Coffman’s recent explanations for his votes to defund Planned Parenthood, and you also know he used a Planned-Parenthood logo to promote himself in a political advertisement during his last election campaign, you might conclude that Coffman’s turn against Planned Parenthood is a recent change-of-heart.

But left out of media coverage of Coffman’s votes is the fact that he’s voted six times to defund Planned Parenthood over the past eight years, culminating in October’s defunding vote, which he explained by saying:

Coffman: “Until they clean up their act, we should fund critical women’s services through the many other community health partners that operate across my district, the state and all across this country in a way that doesn’t fly in the face of human decency.”

Until they clean up their act? There’s nothing in Coffman’s record of six defunding votes to suggest he’d ever support Planned Parenthood. That’s why everyone was surprised that he’d used a Planned Parenthood logo in a campaign ad last year.

But, apparently, not a single reporter asked Coffman about his use of the logo until after Coffman voted in Sept. to defund the organization.

“Using Planned Parenthood’s expression of support is not the same thing as saying it’s a good organization,” said Coffman’s spokeswoman Cinamon Waton told 9NEWS.

This leaves the question of why Coffman used the logo unanswered, but at least Watson confirmed that her boss thinks Planned Parenthood is a bad organization, as he said in July on conservative talk radio.

“It’s just one thing after another with Planned Parenthood,” Coffman told KNUS 710-AM’s Dan Caplis.

That statement of  longstanding opposition to Planned Parenthood is consistent with his record of six defunding votes, the first of which occurred in 2007, when he voted for an amendment, offered by  Indiana Rep. Mike Pence, to a federal budget bill. Pence offered a similar amendment in 2009 to a federal budget bill, and Coffman voted in favor.

Coffman’s next vote to defund Planned Parenthood came in 2011, after House Republicans added a resolution to a federal budget bill, HR 36, stating that funding in the legislation “may be made available for any purpose to Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc. or any affiliate of Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc.” Also in 2011, House Republicans added amendment 95 to H.R. 1, allowing Coffman to vote again to defund Planned Parenthood.

Coffman’s next opportunities to defund Planned Parenthood came this year, in September and October, and he took advantabge of them by voting again to rescind federal money.

This issue will clearly return as the election season heats up, and there are still questions left hanging, including the basic question, which Coffman’s spokesman dodged earlier this year, of why such an ardently anti-choice and anti-Planned-Parenthood Congressman would use the organization’s logo in a campaign ad. But more broadly, why has Coffman opposed Planned Parenthood for so long? And with such fervor?

Important Paragraphs Cut from Denver Post Print Edition

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

I was sorry to see that key paragraphs of Denver Post reporter John Frank’s intelligent reporting on the latest Quinnipiac poll were cut from the version of the article that appeared in newspaper’s print edition. Here is the disappeared info:

Moreover, the survey results are likely to face scrutiny given the pollster’s mixed reputation in Colorado. A 2014 Quinnipiac poll put Gov. John Hickenlooper down 10 points to his Republican rival weeks before voting began even though others showed him with a narrow 2 percentage point edge. Hickenlooper won by 3 points.

The survey under-represented Democratic and unaffiliated voters, compared to state registration figures — which may help explain Clinton’s below-average performance in the poll.

To my way of thinking, those two paragraphs, which were in the online article, provided essential context on the poll’s absurd rusults, which showed, in part, Donald Trump thumping Hillary Clinton by an 11-point margin!

At least the print edition included this paragraph:

The poll — a year before the general election — represents a snapshot in time, rather than a reliable indicator of how Colorado will vote in November 2016.

Get More Smarter on Thursday (Nov. 19)

Get More SmarterThe Colorado Pols Quadruple Doppler (with Cheese) predicts zero inches of snow accumulation today. It’s time to Get More Smarter with Colorado Pols. If you think we missed something important, please include the link in the comments below (here’s a good example).


► Governor John Hickenlooper continues to speak out about his decision to allow Syrian refugees into Colorado. As 9News reports:

During a press conference Wednesday, Gov. John Hickenlooper (D-Colorado) defended his announcement that he would not block Colorado from accepting Syrian refugees – a stance contrary to a number of other governors and mayors who spoke out earlier in the week.

Hickenlooper said he thought the federal government would do a sufficient job in screening the refugees ahead of their arrival in the United States, and that he trusted the judgment of the Obama administration, which is allowing 10,000 Syrian refugees into the country over the next year.

Critics of the refugee policy cited fears following last week’s terrorist attacks in Paris, which left 129 people dead and scores more wounded. At least one of the attackers was carrying a Syrian passport – but French officials said Saturday that the passport was a fake.

Meanwhile, fear-mongering Republicans such as Rep. Scott Tipton (and the never-classy Tom Tancredo) are still rattling cages about preventing Syrian refugees from entering the United States. Nevermind that refusing to accept refugees is exactly how ISIS was hoping the right-wing would react.


► The Washington Post’s “fact checker” easily disproves silly claims from Republican Presidential candidates that President Obama has agreed to allow as many as 250,000 Syrian refugees into the United States. You won’t be surprised to note that Ben Carson doesn’t understand the process for setting the maximum number of refugees allowed into the country each year.


► Introducing…for the first time in Colorado history…weighing in at a healthy 480 pages…Colorado’s first Statewide Water Plan!!! As Bruce Finley reports for the Denver Post:

Colorado officials are unveiling an unprecedented water plan, after a decade of statewide negotiations, that prioritizes water-saving in a $20 billion push to allow population growth in the face of huge projected shortfalls.

State water planners on Thursday will present a roughly 480-page document to Gov. John Hickenlooper.

“Our footing is better now than it has ever been,” Colorado Water Conservation Board director James Eklund said Wednesday.

Priority action for the coming year: figuring out funding. Most of the $20 billion needed by 2050 would be paid by Front Range water providers. State costs of $3 billion to $6 billion — or $100 million a year, Eklund said — could come from new fees, private funders or a water tax if voters approve.

This all sounds very exciting, but we’ll probably wait for the Cliff’s Notes version to be published.


Get even more smarter after the jump…


Tipton promoting apparent misinformation that Paris attacker had “Syrian refugee passport”

(Rumor doesn’t have it – Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Rep. Scott Tipton (R).

Rep. Scott Tipton (R).

On Facebook Monday, Rep. Scott Tipton posted the apparent misinformation that “one of the bombers involved in the Paris attacks had a Syrian refugee passport.”

This is almost certainly wrong, apparently a so-called false flag, yet the statement remains on Tipton’s official Facebook page.

Newsweek reported: “Serbian officials told The Guardian that they think both the passport found in Paris and on the man they arrested are fake. A source investigating the case told the AFP that the passport belongs to a Syrian soldier who was killed earlier this year. Officials have not made any public statements on the passport confirming or denying its authenticity.”

Tipton on Facebook: The risks posed to our national security by admitting tens of thousands of refugees from a war-torn region that is currently the global hotbed for terrorist activity are very real. The U.S. should immediately stop accepting Syrian refugees…

While most of these people are innocent and victims themselves, all it takes is one ISIS terrorist posing as an asylum seeker to come to the United States and inflict harm…

Given that at least one of the bombers involved in the Paris attacks had a Syrian refugee passport, the threat is very real and the risk is high. [BigMedia emphasis]

Tipton’s post incited these ugly comments, which is another reason he should remove it ASAP.

Esther Scaman: Keep up the good work Scott! Keep all those bastards out of our country! I say pack n carry at all times! And for those opposing you I’ll thank you for them since they are like their president putting America in harms way and won’t accept the truth if it slapped them in the face!!!

Patricia R. Lang: Much like it was in Viet Nam, one can not tell the refugee from the terrorist bent on destroying our country and our way of life. It is sad but all Syrian refugees much be stopped from entering the United States of America

Tipton was on KVOR’s Richard Randall show Tuesday, talking about this topic, but he did not refer to the Syrian passport. Another guest on the show, Andy Pico, a GOP Colorado Springs City Councilman, spread the same apparent falsehood that the Paris attacker was a Syrian refugee. (Listen here.)

Pico, along with Tipton, should walk this comment back in some public venue–because it poisons reasonable debate about the refugees. And reasonableness regarding poor Syrian refugees is under severe attack.

A Colorado governor who fought bigotry–and won in the end

(Past is prologue – Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Gov. Ralph Carr (R-CO).

Gov. Ralph Carr (R-CO).

During WWII, the U.S. government forced Japanese Americans  from their homes on the West Coast and moved them to interior states. Kansas Gov. Payne Ratner, reflected the opinions of many governors when she responded at the time with, “Japs are not wanted and not welcome in Kansas.”

With at least 22 Republican governors saying they’ll try to keep Syrian refugees out of their states, Denver University’s Seth Masket wrote a blog post yeserday reminding us of this and pointing out that Colorado Governor Ralph Carr “stood out” among his fellow governors at the time and declared that the forced relocation of the Japanese Americans under Executive Order 9066 was unconstitutional. He also welcomed them to Colorado.

Masket didn’t mention Hickenlooper, who has welcomed Syrian refugees, but the loose parallel between the two Colorado governors isn’t lost on anyone reading Masket’s post, titled “The governor who didn’t give in to fear … and paid a price for it.

Masket: “Obviously, the relocation of American citizens of Japanese ancestry is not the same as accepting refugees from another country,” writes Masket, who’s an Associate Professor of Political Science at DU. “But there are clear parallels, particularly in the political incentives governors are confronting. It’s not just that it’s easy to demagogue against foreign invaders; it’s that it’s sometimes politically risky not to. The governors refusing to take in Syrian refugees today may or may not know Ralph Carr’s name, but they have surely imagined his fate, and they don’t want the same for themselves.” [BigMedia emphasis]

Masket cites the Principled Politician, former 9News reporter Adam Schrager’s much-acclaimed biography of Carr. The book shows the respect Carr has now, in hindsight, even though his stance during WWII ended his political career.


Should Democrats Rename the Annual Jefferson-Jackson Dinner?


Richard Jefferson (left) and Stephen Jackson

John Frank of the Denver Post reports on a “conversation” that Colorado Democratic Party Chairman Rick Palacio wants to have with Colorado Democrats about perhaps renaming the annual Jefferson-Jackson dinner:

The Colorado Democratic Party is considering renaming its annual Jefferson Jackson fundraising dinner, part of a nationwide shift away from the founders of the party.

Chairman Rick Palacio on Monday emailed Democratic activists to ask whether they supported renaming the dinner– and if they did, to solicit suggestions.

“It’s not a move to change the name, it’s simply a conversation I want to have with people around the state,” Palacio said in an interview. “What I want to do is solicit ideas and feedback about whether people even want it to be changed.”

The survey is taking suggestions until Nov. 25 and Palacio said he hopes to make a decision by the end of the year about whether to rename the dinner, which is scheduled for Feb. 13 at the Sheraton Downtown Denver. If Palacio decides to make a change, the party’s members can vote again on the new name.

The potential shift away from this “Jefferson Jackson” guy is happening across the country, as the New York Times reported in August. For the sake of argument, let’s pretend that the name is going to be changed. What say you, Polsters? Drop some ideas on us in the comments below.

Here’s the link to offer your own naming suggestions to the Colorado Democratic Party. In the event that Jeb! Bush wins the race for President in 2016, we suggest that Republicans rename their annual fundraising dinner to simply, “Bushes.”