U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

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 26, 2009 03:00 PM UTC

Weekend Open Thread

  • 74 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“The actions of men are the best interpreters of their thoughts.”

–John Locke

Tweet
Share

Comments

74 thoughts on “Weekend Open Thread”

  1. Why are we even still arguing over this?

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo…

    The new CBS/New York Times poll not only shows overwhelming support for the public option — it shows that a plurality of self-identified Republicans are for it, too.

    The poll asked this question: “Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government administered health insurance plan — something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get — that would compete with private health insurance plans?”

    The top-line result is 65% in favor, 26% opposed. Among Democrats only, it’s 81%-12%, and independents are at 61%-30%. And among Republican respondents, 47% are in favor, to 42% opposed.

    1. A) Because it’s to be Obama’s “waterloo”

      b) Because we can.

      c) Because if we didn’t continue to argue, the party of no would look pretty silly just saying no to nothing instead of no to everything.

    3. Right after you smack him with a Bobby quote, follow up with a Gipper roundhouse. He won’t know what to do.

      (In all seriousness, try not to be a total putz. I can’t believe Jim is even validating your crankiness.)  

        1. Your meltdown in the other thread about the initiative/referendum was glorious. I think if you were less full of yourself and had a little more appreciation for Carpenter’s willingness to spend time with you, you might actually learn something and then have something worth contributing. At the moment you don’t.

          Right now you are just being ridiculous.  

              1. I rarely get mad at people – there’s no return in it.

                Also the attempts by you and a couple of others to change the subject are not doing Ritter any favors. Yes you can refuse to face this issue today. But if he’s defeated in ’10 then he and all of his staff are out of a job and we’re once again under a Republican administration.

                We tell the GOP it needs introspection. But when brought up for us Dems, it’s all too often answered with snark and an attempt to change the subject.

                2. David, the Democrats who are running things remember how they got there — in no small part because state voters thought the ruling Republicans over-reached and got drunk with their seeming lock on power.

                  There is no surer path to a Republican take-over than for Democrats to go hog wild with the kind of stereotypically Democratic ideas you’re proposing.

                  Ritter and most of the Democrats in the legislature won office by promising mature, measured competence — John Morse is far more the typical Democratic legislator than is Morgan Carroll — and that’s what they’re giving voters.

                  Is this approach more timid than I’d like on some issues? Sure, but to suggest a Gov. Penry would be preferable to a Gov. Ritter in the middle of the worse recession in our lifetimes is ridiculous. You would really prefer grandstanding about refusing federal stimulus dollars, keeping A/B in place and vetoes left and right for domestic partnerships and a host of other progressive laws?

                  Why don’t you ask Carpenter how well a fire-breathing liberal does statewide in Colorado. Since we haven’t had one on the ballot in decades (former ’60s radical Sam Brown was probably the last one, or maybe former one-term Sen. Floyd Haskell, who was thrown out of office the last time he was on the ballot), you might also ask him why that is.  

                  1. with RG. Governor Penry…Governor McInnis? Not even!

                    I know that a great many liberal Democrats are chafing at some of Ritters’ decisions. Well, I am a liberal Democrat, and I don’t agree with many of the things he has done ( the Bennet appointment as an example ).

                    The very fact that Bill Ritter has pissed off so many in the party base is an indication that he is doing a good job.

                    RedGreens’ comment about the chances of a flaming liberal getting elected in this state is exactly right. It hasn’t been long since this state was bright red…remember?

                    The Democrats can continue to control the politics of this state, but not by writing off the conservative voter. Many indies and conservadems out there put Bill Ritter in office. If he ran a fully left leaning government…those voters can easily take him out.

                    We have made some progress in Colorado in the past three years…let’s not squander it and hand control back to the party of No.

                    Governor Penry? The mere thought gives me the heebiejeebies…and Governor McInnis?…I can’t even get my mind to go there.

                    And let me add my wishes for a Happy Birthday to you, David.

                  2. I remember mild-mannered middle of the road Dick (Duty to die and Abortion forever) Lamm….and who can forget, the ever-popular gentle Roy Romer…

                    My recollection of history is that both men were elected to state wide office mutiple times…

                  3. And yes Ritter has done a number of good things for this state. But a fundamental issue I see with Ritter is he is unwilling to go for a big change. He is excellent at effecting change in small steps. He is superb at doing the best we can in the constraints we face.

                    But when it comes to considering major changes – I don’t see it happening.

                    As to fire breathing liberal, I’ll agree Mark Udall is not a liberal, but he was painted that way by Schaffer – and won. Liberal is not a dirty word state-wide anymore.

                    I’m not asking for an ultra-liberal response. I would just like to see an administration willing to seriously consider anything & everything that could make a significant difference.

                    This quote (by Ritter) is what I find so worrisome:

                    He said he’s “not entertaining tax increases” to close the widening chasm between what the state has budgeted and what it can afford. Only temporary fixes or cuts remain as options to balance the budget

                3. I was merely enjoying how silly your childish feet-stamping is, especially when you attempt to wrap it in dime-store political wisdom (that you read on the internet).

                  Go on, give us a big smile, and we’ll let you go out and play!

    6. Ask him why the Gov is too scared to do anything about the illegal Revenue regulation exempting software.  Ask him if the Gov intends to roll over on the conservation easements to try to buy votes in se Colorado.

    7. -What do the Colorado voters need to better understand about the budget process?

      – What changes, if any, would you prefer to see in the CO law & Consitution regarding revenue and budgeting?

      – Why did the Legislature in the last session pass legislation that the Governor wouldn’t sign?  Wouldn’t it seem reasonable that the party leadership would get together on what the legislation should or should not include so they can pass it and the governor can sign it?

      – Who is the governor endorsing in other races?

      or Did the Den Post get it anywhere close to right about why AR is running?

      2. The big question is whether Ritter plans to endorse in the AG’s race or sit that one out, since Suthers is “his lawyer” (basically the same reason Suthers gave for declining to run against Ritter).

        Ritter has already endorsed Bennet, wholeheartedly, BTW.

        1. at least it should be asked broadly anyway.

          I mean- Tancredo and Coffman endorsed suburban mayoral candidates. Tis the season, I get that, but really? Why not just go JAndrews all the way and endorse in every race – city council, school board, fire district, parks and rec board and all the way up?

          I don’t really care about endorsements from anyone other than the head of the candidate’s party or informed but complete outsiders anyway.  But an argument could be made that Ritter is the head of the State D’s- no disrespect to Pat Waak.  ANd you can’t ask Ritter about outsiders.  Well you could- but why bother.

      1. The Spanish language program from DPS is the ONLY weekly radio show for parents.  It is in Spanish.  I think it is a great idea. I think it should be in English, also.  

        The DPS radio show is NOT the State of the Schools report that the Superintendent is doing….as a matter of fact, that report is apparently not going to be broadcast to anyone…not in English, not in Spanish, not in any of the other 80 languages spoken by DPS parents.  The DPS radio show is a weekly show for spanish parents.

        WTF did you assume that I was talking about the State of the schools report????

        My contention on this blog has consistently been that we are not getting news about DPS from the msm.  The school board election is not being reported. No one knows what the candidates think.  No one challenges existing school members about dismal news about the schools. DPS refused to release the data about the kids who were moved into new schools.  And, the only weekly update from DPS is in Spanish.  That was my point.

        I am sorry but I am really pissed off….are you a teacher?

        are you a candidate using a different name?  WTF  I don’t like Rosen, he blackouts debate on the state of  local schools and so another source of information is lost.  

        But your non-sequitur feeds the Rosens of this world.

        1. Don’t speak with innuendo, its message is in the eye of the beholder.

          I am not a teacher nor a DPS board candidate.

          Don’t ask me why the MSM is not covering school board elections.  The Coloradoan is not really covering the Poudre election either (are you listening, Bob Moore?)

          1. There is no innuendo, it is a straightforward comment. the only information about DPS in the mainstream media is on a spanish language radio station, once a week, targeting spanish speaking parents.

            If the state of the schools is going to be broadcast over the public airwaves, I have not seen that schedule.

            Again, I am not asking you why the msm is not covering school board elections, I am documenting that they are not.

            Beauty is what is in the eye of the beholder; not facts.

  7. If the American people are fed up with war, imagine how the soldiers, sailors and airmen feel.  Besides, being “fed up with war” would imply America’s sacrifice in general or profound awareness of what our troops endure.  I can name several of the Colorado delegation that have never visited the Denver VA and without naming names, I daresay, with the exception of patients, their families and a handful of volunteers, the VA is a total mystery to most and a place where you can meet America’s most recent wounded heroes along with many from the past.  If you haven’t seen “Born on the Fourth of July” rent it.  The only difference between then and now?  The VA is even less prepared to deal with those in it’s care and those new to the system.  Without civilian knowledge and advocacy, the VA remains what it is and not what politicians call the “best care in the world.”

    Herbert mentions a victory parade towards the end of this op/ed.  I know that Colorado Springs had a parade in honor of Ft. Carson a few years ago.  Has it ever occurred to any large American city to have a thank you parade for any of the major combat units that have served in Iraq or Afghanistan.  After the first tour?  The second tour?  The third tour?  I am not sure where these men are doing it, after my tour in Vietnam as a grunt I was not physically or mentally capable of a second tour  MC

    NY Times

    September 26, 2009

    Op-Ed Columnist

    Fed Up With War

    By BOB HERBERT

    Most Americans, looking at a globe, would be hard pressed to find Afghanistan. Americans on the whole know very little about the land or its people – and care even less. They know we’re at war over there, wherever it is, but if you were to ask what a Pashtun is or mention the name Abdullah Abdullah you would most likely get a blank stare.

    Americans’ minds are on other things, like trying to figure out why, if the Great Recession is over, as Ben Bernanke seems to believe, the employment landscape still looks like a toxic waste dump.

    A New York Times/CBS News poll found that eight years after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, there is a general feeling of disenchantment with our military involvement there and a desire to bring it to an end. About half of all Americans believe that the war has had no effect on the threat of terrorism, and a majority want the troops out of there in two years.

    Continued:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09…

    1. The average American’s lack of focus on our military’s efforts in Afghanistan, Iraq; the average politician’s disconnect from the whole thing; our minimal and sporadic efforts to even demonstrate our thankfulness for the service and sacrifice of so many people.  

      Eight years in Afghanistan, and partly because it has not been a full-blown effort (particularly when troops were moved from there to the unnecessary invasion of Iraq), we’re not even close to being able to say it’s a success.  You have to wonder whether either strategy – nationbuilding OR strategic counterterrorism – can succeed without a major increase in troops and funding.  

      Have military leaders learned how to succeed in these situations?  Have political leaders learned?

      1. were that the United States would never commit to nation building or a war they could not win, a counter insurgency, hence the Abrahms tanks, Apache and Black Hawk helicopters, A-10 Thunderbolts, Stealth fighters and bombers, etc.. All designed to fight Russian tanks, massed troops and command and control facilities.

        A good read from Keith Olbermann on the lessons of the Vietnam War, an excerpt below followed by an op/ed on September 11, 2009 by Generals Hoar and Krulak, both Marine generals of exceptional character and accomplishment, unlike David Petraeus, a scholar at best with no ground experience in fighting a counter insurgency or combat at the company or field level:

        Olbermann: Lessons from the Vietnam War

        Keith Olbermann responds to Bush’s comparison between Vietnam and Iraq

        By Keith Olbermann

        Anchor, ‘Countdown’

        updated 6:55 p.m. MT, Mon., Nov . 20, 2006

        It is a shame and it is embarrassing to us all when President Bush travels 8,000 miles only to wind up avoiding reality again.

        And it is pathetic to listen to a man talk unrealistically about Vietnam, who permitted the “Swift-Boating” of not one but two American heroes of that war, in consecutive presidential campaigns.

        But most importantly – important beyond measure – his avoidance of reality is going to wind up killing more Americans.

        And that is indefensible and fatal.

        Asked if there were lessons about Iraq to be found in our experience in Vietnam, Mr. Bush said that there were, and he immediately proved he had no clue what they were.

        “One lesson is,” he said, “that we tend to want there to be instant success in the world, and the task in Iraq is going to take a while.”

        “We’ll succeed,” the president concluded, “unless we quit.”

        If that’s the lesson about Iraq that Mr. Bush sees in Vietnam, then he needs a tutor.

        http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15…

        “General Hoar drew upon his experience with CENTCOM in the days leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq to stress the importance of allied cooperation, notably the ability to base military operations from Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Turkey, as key to success in the region.   As U.S. strategy for the invasion coalesced, Hoar expressed misgivings, in particular regarding the number of troops committed to the operation.

        A year after the official cessation of hostilities, Hoar continued to maintain that coalition forces did not have enough troops on the ground to accomplish their mission.  In December 2003, Hoar stated that Assistant Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, “…doesn’t know much about the business he’s in”.  In testimony before the Senate committee on foreign relations on May 19, 2004, he stated regarding the situation in Iraq, “I believe we are absolutely on the brink of failure. We are looking into the abyss”

        On September 7, 2004, Hoar and seven other retired officers wrote an open letter to President Bush expressing their concern over the number of allegations of abuse of prisoners in U.S. military custody.  In it they wrote:

        “We urge you to commit – immediately and publicly – to support the creation of a comprehensive, independent commission to investigate and report on the truth about all of these allegations, and to chart a course for how practices that violate the law should be addressed.”

        Wikipedia

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J…

        Fear was no excuse to condone torture

        The Miami Herald

        September 11, 2009

        BY CHARLES C. KRULAK and JOSEPH P. HOAR

        In the fear that followed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Americans were told that defeating Al Qaeda would require us to “take off the gloves.” As a former commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps and a retired commander-in-chief of U.S. Central Command, we knew that was a recipe for disaster.

        But we never imagined that we would feel duty-bound to publicly denounce a vice president of the United States, a man who has served our country for many years. In light of the irresponsible statements recently made by former Vice President Dick Cheney, however, we feel we must repudiate his dangerous ideas — and his scare tactics.

        We have seen how ill-conceived policies that ignored military law on the treatment of enemy prisoners hindered our ability to defeat al Qaeda. We have seen American troops die at the hands of foreign fighters recruited with stories about tortured Muslim detainees at GuantГЎnamo and Abu Ghraib. And yet Cheney and others who orchestrated America’s disastrous trip to “the dark side” continue to assert — against all evidence — that torture “worked” and that our country is better off for having gone there.

        In an interview with Fox News Sunday, Cheney applauded the “enhanced interrogation techniques” — what we used to call “war crimes” because they violated the Geneva Conventions, which the United States instigated and has followed for 60 years. Cheney insisted the abusive techniques were “absolutely essential in saving thousands of American lives and preventing further attacks against the United States.” He claimed they were “directly responsible for the fact that for eight years, we had no further mass casualty attacks against the United States. It was good policy . . . It worked very, very well.”

        Repeating these assertions doesn’t make them true. We now see that the best intelligence, which led to the capture of Saddam Hussein and the elimination of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was produced by professional interrogations using non-coercive techniques. When the abuse began, prisoners told interrogators whatever they thought would make it stop.

        Torture is as likely to produce lies as the truth. And it did.

        What leaders say matters. So when it comes to light, as it did recently, that U.S. interrogators staged mock executions and held a whirling electric drill close to the body of a naked, hooded detainee, and the former vice president winks and nods, it matters.

        The Bush administration had already degraded the rules of war by authorizing techniques that violated the Geneva Conventions and shocked the conscience of the world. Now Cheney has publicly condoned the abuse that went beyond even those weakened standards, leading us down a slippery slope of lawlessness. Rules about the humane treatment of prisoners exist precisely to deter those in the field from taking matters into their own hands. They protect our nation’s honor.

        To argue that honorable conduct is only required against an honorable enemy degrades the Americans who must carry out the orders. As military professionals, we know that complex situational ethics cannot be applied during the stress of combat. The rules must be firm and absolute; if torture is broached as a possibility, it will become a reality. Moral equivocation about abuse at the top of the chain of command travels through the ranks at warp speed.

        On Aug. 24, the United States took an important step toward moral clarity and the rule of law when a special task force recommended that in the future, the Army interrogation manual should be the single standard for all agencies of the U.S. government.

        The unanimous decision represents an unusual consensus among the defense, intelligence, law enforcement and homeland security agencies. Members of the task force had access to every scrap of intelligence, yet they drew the opposite conclusion from Cheney’s. They concluded that far from making us safer, cruelty betrays American values and harms U.S. national security.

        On this solemn day we pause to remember those who lost their lives on 9/11. As our leaders work to prevent terrorists from again striking on our soil, they should remember the fundamental precept of counterinsurgency we’ve relearned in Afghanistan and Iraq: Undermine the enemy’s legitimacy while building our own. These wars will not be won on the battlefield. They will be won in the hearts of young men who decide not to sign up to be fighters and young women who decline to be suicide bombers. If Americans torture and it comes to light — as it inevitably will — it embitters and alienates the very people we need most.

        Our current commander-in-chief understands this. The task force recommendations take us a step closer to restoring the rule of law and the standards of human dignity that made us who we are as a nation. Repudiating torture and other cruelty helps keep us from being sent on fools’ errands by bad intelligence. And in the end, that makes us all safer.

        Charles C. Krulak was commandant of the Marine Corps from 1995 to 1999. Joseph P. Hoar was commander in chief of U.S. Central Command from 1991 to 1994.

        The Miami Herald

        http://www.miamiherald.com/opi…

      2. …Ought to depend on some sort of plan.

        I think that’s what you’re saying, so don’t take this as criticism.

        What’s the plan?

        Obama had it right:

        “until I’m satisfied we’ve got the right strategy, I’m not going to be sending some young man or woman over there”

        http://thenews.com.pk/updates….

        You want to kill our sons and daughters without a plan?  Go for it.  Just try to explain that to their parents, wives, husbands, and kids.

        1. Speaking of Afghanistan

          September 27, 2009

          Op-Ed Columnist

          Obama at the Precipice

          By FRANK RICH

          THE most intriguing, and possibly most fateful, news of last week could not be found in the health care horse-trading in Congress, or in the international zoo at the United Nations, or in the Iran slapdown in Pittsburgh. It was an item tucked into a blog at ABCNews.com. George Stephanopoulos reported that the new “must-read book” for President Obama’s war team is “Lessons in Disaster” by Gordon M. Goldstein, a foreign-policy scholar who had collaborated with McGeorge Bundy, the Kennedy-Johnson national security adviser, on writing a Robert McNamara-style mea culpa about his role as an architect of the Vietnam War.

          Bundy left his memoir unfinished at his death in 1996. Goldstein’s book, drawn from Bundy’s ruminations and deep new research, is full of fresh information on how the best and the brightest led America into the fiasco. “Lessons in Disaster” caused only a modest stir when published in November, but The Times Book Review cheered it as “an extraordinary cautionary tale for all Americans.” The reviewer was, of all people, the diplomat Richard Holbrooke, whose career began in Vietnam and who would later be charged with the Afghanistan-Pakistan crisis by the new Obama administration.

          Continued:

          http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09…

          1. someone said Afghanistan is where empires go to die.  Don’t see how a few thousand more troops will change the equation. Don’t have 500,000 troops to send or the will to send them or any guarantee that would be worthwhile in the end.  

            No government in place there worth defending or capable of being a useful partner for us.

            Conflating Taliban with Qaeda is gross oversimplification.  Qaeda is mainly in Pakistan anyway and it may not even be all that useful to think of something like Qaeda as being dependent on place.

            It’s like wack-a-mole with Qaeda being such an amorphous, fluid entity. Maybe we need to take a deep breath and completely reconsider what we need to do.  

            Focusing like a laser on stopping terrorists from getting nukes and staying out of everything not directly related to that goal, like whether or not Sharia law is imposed, might be a good place to start.

            Picking sides in other people’s civil strife has never panned out for us all that well. Backing one repressive corrupt government over another hasn’t been that beneficial either.

    2. I offer several tours, here are a couple. One tour is of the Colorado Capitol, which nobody has ever taken me up on.  I have offered that tour to thousands of people of all ages, backgrounds and politics. It is open from mid-January to mid-May.

      Another I have offered since 1976 is a tour of the VA Hospital, just whenever, nothing special, just a walk through. I believe every politician, no matter the office, needs to spend a few hours there.  You have many politicians wrap themselves in our Flag, yet few know what it really means to send people to fight for our country.  

      War wounds (including those from training problems) are not what the average traffic accident produces. Many of the doctors doing their internships at the VA hospital are amazed at the types of injuries they are called on to take care of.  And, most importantly what those wounds and injuries are like physically and mentally years and decades later.

      It is important that those who want to send our people in harm’s way understand what they are doing and the consequences of doing it.

    3. The ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are now the equivalent of your crazy Uncle/Aunt about to be sent off to the nut hospital. It’s something that happens to someone you know, and while it has some serious consequences for someone else, you really don’t care.

      Thank the Deserter President – he made the war a blunt instrument of politics, whacking anyone who disagreed with him or his party with the “You Hate the Troops” stick. When the war started to go bad, he made sure that the mainstream coverage went away.

      And that’s were we are today – forgotten wars fought by forgotten heros.

      All my Vietnam vet buds tell me over and over again they’re glad that today’s troops aren’t treated like they were. I wonder about that – we treated returning Vietnam vets like absolute shit, but America never forgot that there was a nasty brutal war being fought, and it needed to end.

      So when we meet someone who’s a vet, (esp from our current war) most people say something like “thank you for your service.” But does anyone actually do anything?

      It seems like since the Presidential election, everyone acts like the war is over and there’s maybe 10 guys in Iraq, and a few in AFPAK. There’s still over 120,000 troops in Iraq – and they STILL can use some packages, some letters, some reminders that a few people actually give a shit about them and what they’re doing.

      But no one really does anymore….and that why no one cares about the war.  

      1. “It’s Deja Vu all over again” Yogi Berra

        Unfortunately, we still refuse to have a national discussion about Vietnam and not just about our casualties- US Armed Forces 58,202 Killed In Action  304,704 Wounded In Action, 1,948 Missing in Action (Nov.7, 2001).  The most tragic omission? We never bothered to own up to what actually happened TO Vietnam, Armed Forces of South Vietnam 233,748 Killed In Action 1,169,763 Wounded In Action.  One million North Vietnamese Army and Vietcong killed, three million Vietnamese civilians killed.  Who are we that we can ignore our responsibility for such chaos? And what are the consequences of such belligerence? Such ignorance?  The question is staring at us again in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Where do Islamic radicals get their weapons and ammunition?  Does a country ever secure the blessings of liberty by the actions of foreigners?  Can centuries of isolation, theocracy and tradition be supplanted by military might or intrigue?  In ten years? 30? 50? Ever?  Indeed the doves ARE right.

        November 30, 2008

        ‘The Doves Were Right’

        By RICHARD HOLBROOKE

        LESSONS IN DISASTER

        McGeorge Bundy and the Path to War in Vietnam

        By Gordon M. Goldstein

        300 pp. Times Books/ Henry Holt & Company. $25

        In 1961, John Fitzgerald Kennedy brought to Washington a new generation of pragmatic young activists who came to be known as the New Frontiersmen. When the journalist Theodore White later wrote a memorable photo essay about them for Life magazine, he called them the “action-intellectuals.”

        The most celebrated were Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara and McGeorge Bundy, whose title – modest by today’s standards – was special assistant to the president for national security affairs, but whose importance was great (today the position has a more grandiose title – national security adviser). McВ­Namara, of course, became one of the most controversial public servants in modern times, while Bundy got less attention, except for Kai Bird’s excellent 1998 dual biography of him and his В­brother William (who had served as assistant secretary of state for East Asia).

        But in “Lessons in Disaster,” Gordon Goldstein’s highly unusual book, Bundy emerges as the most interesting figure in the Vietnam tragedy – less for his unfortunate part in prosecuting the war than for his agonized search 30 years later to understand himself.

        Bundy was the quintessential Eastern Establishment Republican, a member of a family that traced its Boston roots back to 1639. His ties to Groton (where he graduated first in his class), Yale and then Harvard were deep. At the age of 27, he wrote, to national acclaim, the ‘memoirs” of former Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson. In 1953, Bundy became dean of the faculty at Harvard – an astonishing responsibility for someone still only 34. Even David Halberstam, who would play so important a role in the public demolition of Bundy’s reputation in his classic, “The Best and the Brightest,” admitted that “Bundy was a magnificent dean” who played with the faculty “like a cat with mice.”

        Continued:

        http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11…

  8. Question from Tom of Colorado Pols (combined one from Mike Ditto posted on Your Show’s Facebook): Why didn’t you run six months ago? How to see this as anything other than a political temper tantrum?

    Romanoff says he spent the first part of the year criss-crossing the state and … sort of doesn’t answer the question, but says there’s plenty of time from now until the election.

      1. A state of confusion?

        Did anyone else watch the Romanoff segments? He seemed jumpy, spoke really fast. Polished answers that veered off quickly to the points he wanted to make rather than actually answer the questions — which is a plus in a debate but loses the “warmth” advantage he has in a setting like Your Show.

        1. … unlike the 3 questions that Udall/McCain filibustered through a couple of weeks ago.

          I thought it was interesting on several points:

          1)  He wasn’t afraid to endorse single-payer — addressing the massive disruption argument from an individual family’s viewpoint.  But he also emphasized his ability to compromise, so he would in all likelihood vote for a suitable alternative.

          2)  His notion that we should review programs periodically to evaluate their continuing effectiveness, and potential need to either modify or sunset them if they no longer serve their intended purpose.

          3) He did do the politician pivot and bring his key message of leadership, legislative experience and across-the-aisle negotiating success into most of the questions, as you would expect.

          All-in-all, not out of the park, but not bad in differentiating himself without taking any undue shots at Bennet or Ritter (only once mentioned the 1 vote vs the people argument).

          Did you catch his statement that we’ll probably get an announcement about his statewide campaign org in 2 weeks?

        2. … Romanoff is definitely keeping up with current events — referencing Biden’s recommendation that we restrict our focus to fighting Al Qaeda, and not increase our troops which could serve mainly to widen the war with the increasingly popular Taliban.

          So he’s also differentiating himself by being an independent thinker — certainly not an advocate of the status quo (or the Washington establishment — hint, hint 😉

          1. by invoking Vice President Biden, he’s standing out as someone who isn’t advocating the D.C. establishment? Biden is rather a high official in that establishment. But yeah, it’s nice to know he reads the New York Times and was aware of the big foreign policy debate that’s been going on all week. Kudos.

            1. … and Biden’s views are getting a Mulligan as HRC “won” the first debate on this point last March.  She wanted the COIN strategy with the large troop increase.

              Ironic, huh, that Andrew disagrees with HRC?

              And what’s so bad about keeping informed on the issues that a Senator would need to address?  It was, afterall, one of the questions asked this morning.

              Surely you can come up with better knocks than that.

                1. … is that Romanoff chose a view that is not yet in the majority, thus asserting his independence.  But he probably feels it has a high probability of being the correct course, relying on Biden’s acknowledged expertise in the area.

                  That’s what I like about Romanoff.

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

101 readers online now

Newsletter

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