What a Mandate and Democracy Looks Like

12 thoughts on “What a Mandate and Democracy Looks Like”

1. Too bad the Democratic party has no women in charge at the county level!?  (according to this article anyway, which is “mandat[ory]” truth)

   Log in to Reply

   1. .
      
      you may have to switch parties.
      
      .

      Log in to Reply

      1. You could stick with the party that has two women elected state-wide and two members of Congress, as well as the state party chair … or you could switch to the Republicans, who have zero women holding statewide office, zero female members of Congress and some guy running the party. The choice is yours.

         Log in to Reply

         1. Barron really walked into that one.

            Log in to Reply

   2. Chairman is dated terminology.  The reporterman could have used person, people, owner, sitter, holder, warmer . . . -cushion.  There are a lot of possiblities if we get up and out of our chairs and think about it.

      OBTW Ann Knollman and Cindy Lowry should do some reporterman education time.

      Log in to Reply

2. That doesn’t mean I refused to support any other nominee in ’08.

   Log in to Reply

3. That doesn’t seem very democratic either?
   

   Log in to Reply

   1. …….and Democrats is not an easy thing, but 62 out of 64 party chairs sounds pretty darned representative of the will of Colorado Democrats.  Let’s see, all the active Democrats in a county get together and elect a chair………….

      If “damage in the November election” means Romanoff is elected US Senator, which I am confident he will be, then the only thing the governor has to worry about is the 71/29 split in favor of Romanoff.  No problem there, the Colorado rank and file Democrats have always been split 71/29.  The 71 crowd was a little disappointed with Ken “Alberto Gonzalez” Salazar and to their credit, they’re learning.  Yeah, I think just about anyone could beat Pete Coors or Bob Schaffer, the Republicans have a very weak bench and even weaker mission statement.    

      “What I am hopeful of is that it (the primary) does not split the party or split it in way that causes damage in the November election,” Ritter said. “I obviously would have counseled Andrew against this, but this is something he decided to do, and I’m going to be with Michael Bennet.”

      Ritter, who has repeatedly cited Bennet’s personal qualities as assets for the Senate post, said his choice wasn’t the safe, easy one.

      “I could have appointed Andrew, and it would have been better for me politically to have done that because he had sort of a longer history in Colorado politics,” he said.

      Ritter’s appointment of Bennet, seen by some as Denver-centric and out of step with party loyalists, as well as his vetoes of some bills desired by unions have cost him support with elements in the Democratic base.

      But, “that’s just part of the life you live when you’re in leadership,” the governor said.”

      http://www.denverpost.com/head…

      Log in to Reply

      1. …you’re bashing Ken Salazar.  You’re a real peachy PUMA, ain’t you?  AR must be thrilled to have you out there talking him up!

         Log in to Reply

         1. …………there’s no 11th commandment in the Democratic Party. We do, however, strictly adhere to the 9th, something most Republicans would never consider even if the fires of hell were the consequence. Not so sure I bashed Obama, I certainly didn’t mean to, I plead guilty to bashing Ritter, Udall and Salazar, it’s my right and duty as a CITIZEN.  Obama is between a rock and a hard place, he needs votes right now and not in 2011.  

            Selective application of the law is another specialty of Republicans and Pharisees, not shared with true “liberals” as you well know Jesus was a liberal and He got nailed for it (literally).  With Romanoff being a Juris Doctor, I can’t imagine him straying from his obvious intuition, love and application of the law.  Not sure what a “peachy PUMA” is, would you be so kind as to elaborate?  

            As far as AR being thrilled with me, that’s certainly not the point and most certainly my thoughts are not capable of harming him. I am thrilled that he is talking for me though, something I must admit is not my forte.

            Log in to Reply

            1. I was wrong to call you peachy.  My bad!

               Log in to Reply

      2. I love my county chair, and one of the reasons why is that he’s not under the delusion that he speaks for all of his Democrats, or that it’s his job to. Nor am I so dumb as to think an obsolete opinion about an appointment translates into primary challenge support.

         Most county chairs are prudent people, and don’t see the value in losing local races to satisfy the frustrated entitlement of one man–even if he is such a nice boy who made us all laugh and cry at our JJ dinner once upon a time!

         Instead, a lot of chairs are going to look at the Miles/PUMA Brigade coming out of the woodwork with some dismay and no little irritation. They can smell divisive losers better than most people.

         Point being, keep rolling out your January talking point, pretending that you speak for the county leaders, and the backlash will be justly deserved.  

         Log in to Reply