U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(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) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

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
January 28, 2010 04:29 AM UTC

State of the Union Open Thread

  • 72 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“It takes two to speak truth, one to speak and another to hear.”

–Henry David Thoreau

Tweet
Share

Comments

72 thoughts on “State of the Union Open Thread”

  2. Does anyone know who the single person not in the room is this year? I know Hillary is in London, is there anyone else not there in case the unthinkable were to occur?

    1. the ever recognizable (haha) HUD Secretary Shawn Donovan wasn’t there…or, at least not on camera.  I was definitely playing “name that cabinet secretary,” much to the amusement (embarrassment) of my girlfriend…

          1. I doubt he’s leading any kind of fight against anyone in any universe.

            “maybe if we give up 10% of our brains every year for the zombie rainy day fund, they’ll start to like us.”

  3. and you don’t need to be a climate scientist either

    But even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future – because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy.  And America must be that nation.

    Why is that so hard?  

      2. about the reality of climate change, the point was to show people that green energy/jobs are the future, whether or not you think the earth is round.

        There are Romanoff-bashers here?

        RILLY?

        1. is to trash both sides of the Bennet-Romanoff feuders.

          “So who is the Democratic politician you want to trash?”

          “Who have you got?”

          “Oh sxp, you’re such a rebel!”

      3. i was pushing back on Wade for being so coy about AR’s supposed strength on AGW and, according to Wade, Bennet’s weakness.

        And, just to be clear, the President’s statement was not equivalent to characterizing AGW as possibly being a fad that will go away on it’s own.  Maybe he can afford better speech writers, but that would imply money matters.

          1. that the ruling allows elections to be swamped with corporate money, some of it foreign.  For that matter, unlike individuals, no corporation is a loyal citizen of any state. Alito rules to overturn a hundred years of controlling corporate spending on elections, then  protest that it’s untrue more corporate money will be spent on elections? Huh?  

            1. but I guess it doesn’t matter when you are a Supreme Court Justice and above and beyond any and all laws. I think the only reason he got pissy is because he and the rest of the Court aren’t used to getting even honorable mention in a State of the Union address. Usually, they are lucky to get a head nod. In this case, they got dishonorable mention and rightfully so to the Fab Five. May they someday reap what they have sown.

            2. Strictly speaking, Obama phrased what the Court did too broadly.

              … Indeed, Mr. Obama’s description of the holding of the case was imprecise. He said the court had “reversed a century of law.”

              The law that Congress enacted in the populist days of the early 20th century prohibited direct corporate contributions to political campaigns. That law was not at issue in the Citizens United case, and is still on the books. Rather, the court struck down a more complicated statute that barred corporations and unions from spending money directly from their treasuries – as opposed to their political action committees – on television advertising to urge a vote for or against a federal candidate in the period immediately before the election. It is true, though, that the majority wrote so broadly about corporate free speech rights as to call into question other limitations as well – although not necessarily the existing ban on direct contributions.

              http://opinionator.blogs.nytim…

              1. White House responds:

                CLAIM:  That the President was “imprecise” when he said the decision “reversed a century of law.”

                REALITY:  In 1907, when Congress passed the Tillman Act, it was considered perfectly constitutional to treat corporations differently than people in the context of political activity. This decision changes that century-old legal principle.  As Justice Stevens wrote in dissent, “Congress has placed special limitations on campaign spending by corporations ever since the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907 . . . The Court today rejects a century of history when it treats the distinction between corporate and individual campaign spending as an invidious novelty born of Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce.”

                http://swampland.blogs.time.co…

  6. I think he did a really good job. First off, he did not go in for the soaring rhetoric – which was really good as people want results, not words.

    Through most of it he was a bit pissy, but not terribly partisan. It was more we need to accomplish these things and he’s going to make them happen.

    Very good list of what to do, proper amount of time on items based on how important they are.

    And he closed it up with what was almost a group therapy session for him and the Congress. Brilliant about how he pushed leadership responsibility back on the Republicans in the Senate and then made it clear that he was going to make all of them work for solutions.

    We’ll have to see what he does in the next 2 months, but I think this is the right track. That we need to see effective solutions coming out of Washington – and soon.

        1. And I agree with sufi, yes it’s a very good thing.

          What I really liked is he did not lay it out as partisan warfare, he laid it out that he is going to get things done and he’s going to make them step up and do their job – govern.

            1. Just as Bush was able to get lots of Democratic votes on issues like Iraq, Obama can get the votes – if he figures out the right ways to exert pressure.

              Keep in mind people aren’t mad at the Democrats – they’re mad at Washington. The last thing the Republicans want is for that to get focused on them.

            2. Use the bully pulpit to shape the debate.

              Banking reform is the perfect pitch at this time.  He catches the Republicans convinced that saying no to anything he proposes is a winning strategy to regaining power and then he puts them in a corner where if they vote no they will be protecting the banks who are the object of so much anger.  Let them twist in the wind figuring out how to say no to banking reform without drawing the anger away from Obama and down on themselves.  The types of legislation he brings before Congress could put a lot of pressure on them.  If he is the intelligent hard working person that he appears to be then he will use the lessons he learned in his first year and adjust his approaches.  I think he can.

            3. But he has more (annoyingly, inexplicably more) than demonstrated that he has tried. Now if he’ll just stop wasting concessions on those everybody knows are sworn to oppose him even if he promises each and every one of them a magic unicorn that poops gold and delivers on that promise, we can get down to the business of passing whatever legislation we can around them with no blame attaching to Obama or the Dems in congress.

              The Rs are so clearly pursuing what they perceive to be political advantage over any concept of service to the people, who can blame anyone but them? “The people” sounds so commie anyway. Obama should be able to now say he’s done everything he possibly could to invite bipartisan cooperation and Rs just refuse to respond so let’s move on with what we’ve got.

              1. there is a huge politically important reason why he has to continue to be SEEN AS someone who is doing everything possible to foster bipartisan cooperation: That’s an absolute requisite for most people (on average, more moderate than those who are most vocal) to support anyone at this point.

                  1. he has to continue at least to appear to be bending over backwards for bipartisanship, if he wants to keep, or recover, the broad middle. Maintaining that appearance isn’t something that ever gets checked off.

                    1. The time spent  on bending over backwards quite that far time needs to be redirected to putting together a narrative that refutes the Republicans lies about the nature of the President’s health care goals( for instance, that it’s a government take over when not even a modest public option is actually in it), selling it as hard to the public as the GOP has been selling their lies for decades,  while pointing out that the GOP has made absolutely clear for months that it’s only priority is to see the President fail, not to participate in solving problems for the American people.  

                      The President can still make a gracious show of being open to cooperation but he needn’t pretend to believe in gold pooping unicorns nor ask the American people to either. Months ago the majority of independents were polling in support of Obama on health care reform. Heck, the majority of the whole public was.  All the concessions to Republicans, which have gotten Obama not single Republican vote have decreased, not increased, that support.  

                      One thing Americans have never tolerated is weakness in their leaders and when you keep giving away with both hands and getting nothing in return you start to look pretty pathetic.  The speech was good, reaction positive. Now he needs to follow up by hitting  the reset button on strength and command of the narrative.  We can’t keep playing defense to GOP offense. And not just on health care reform but on all fronts.  

                    2. The White House and the Dems can both market that narrative and maintain the appearance of striving for bipartisan agreement at the same time without any diminution of resources. There was a lot in that speech aimed at both pieces of that puzzle, as it had to be, and has to be the entire follow up.

                      The Republicans are still less popular than the Dems due to their partisan obstinance. The Dems will win only more disdain by appearing inflexible as well.

                      How flexible and accommodating the Dems actually should be is a separate question.

                      But this debate we keep having really, for me, boils down to one thing: Any single conceptualization just doesn’t capture the whole strategic challenge involved. Sure, the American people won’t tolerate weakness, but if that’s the ONLY guiding principle you’re paying attention to, then you’ll get clobbered, because there are a lot of other things that the American people won’t tolerate as well, and you have to juggle them all simultaneously.

                    3. There is a reason why Republicans have been able to get their version to be the accepted version ever since Reagan. There is a reason why the common wisdom about everything from the bail out to health care is what Republicans say it is. The public buys because they are just so much better at selling and the Democrats can’t seem to explain anything without sounding much too much like, well, you.  

                      That’s why they have pretty much been in power, defining terms, setting standards, ever since the 80s, whether they have the White House or the majority in congress or not. They continue to have Dems on defense either way… please don’t think we’re too liberal, please think we’re almost as fiscally conservative as Republicans, please think we have family values too, please think we’re just as tough on security, please believe we don’t want big government interfering in your lives either, please don’t think we’re socialists…I could go on.

                      Democrats have gone from begging the Republican majority to please spare them the nuclear option to begging a Republican minority to please please not filibuster everything. It’s Dems who are already worried about elections so soon after the electorate rose up in disgust against Bushism. That happened because the Obama administration left the field to the Republicans to take control of the narrative, as usual.

                      Obama was certainly right about Reagan being transformational and the transformation endures.  But I’m encouraged.  I think that Obama got it during the election, lost track of it what with  several heart attack worthy crises falling into his lap at once before he had time to enjoy his first three seconds in office.  Now, I think he gets it again even if you don’t.

                    4. I think there’s some truth in what you say, I (as, I think, does Obama, judging from the multifaceted nature of his speech) think that it is the view of a multidimensional reality from a single angle. I’m sure there are lots of things I don’t get, but, nevertheless, that’s still how I see this. But we don’t have to convince each other of anything.

                    5. I thought Littwin was very good today:

                      It had been a tough first year. He had made some mistakes, but he was sure the mistakes were mostly tactical – more about the process than about the product. He had spent too much time working from the inside, hand in hand with Congress, when the voters had expressly said they wanted someone who could work from the outside, with them.

                      He thought the job was to be like heavy-on-process LBJ when it was, in fact, to be more like heavy-on-narrative Ronald Reagan, if you can picture a Reagan from the left. Obama said he got it. And if he didn’t get it before Scott Brown drove his pickup straight through Obama’s health care bill, he definitely got it afterward.

                      The key line from the speech was this: “I campaigned on the promise of change – change we can believe in, the slogan went,” he said. “And right now, I know there are many Americans who aren’t sure if they still believe we can change – or that I can deliver it.”

                      But Obama, you could tell, had no doubts and didn’t really think you should, either.

                      http://www.denverpost.com/litt…

                    7. Even though I sincerely hope that there aren’t any political advisers out there who think that what Democrats really need to do is to make their messaging more multidimensional, it’s so part of the Steve Harvey charm:)!

            4. I sort of expected this way, way back when he was “Barack Who?”  His whole history of making everyone feel good is not leadership, that’s parenting.

              He NEEDS to get angry at the Pubs, to stop acting like they will work with him if he says the right words.  They won’t.  Never. If I know this, why doesn’t he?

              If Obama took a hard populist stand I think many voters will respect it.  Americans love a fighter, especially when its us (lil ole me and friends) against them (big nameless, filthy rich corporations and some individuals).  Someone needs to inform the ill informed electorate how they’ve been hypnotized by the Great Right Wing Noise Machine, Goebels presiding.  

  11. from CBS insta-poll

    83% of speech watchers approve of the proposals the president made in his speech tonight. 17% Disapprove.

    70% of speech watchers think Barack Obama shares the same priorities for the country as they do. 57% thought so before the speech.

    59% of speech watchers think that Barack Obama has a clear plan for creating jobs. 40% thought so before the speech.

    2. Like most things, what matters is not opinion borne of the after glow, but the way folks feel this-morning as they get out of bed, drive to work (or not), and contemplate the next few days.  

      If WH doesn’t keep the momentum going, the Repub spin machine will make all those folks regret rekindling their affair with CHANGE last night.

      All eyes should be on Gibbs and key Cabinet members to keep this going.  The modern bully pulpit takes an army of wags.

      2. with GOP hate radio in my ear…

        (Laura Ingram)

        from the tone of her voice she herself was having a hard time believing the propaganda she was trying to make sense with.

        angry to put it lightly…

        this gave me the feeling that President Obama hit the nail on the head. over and over driving it home.

        Funny but the SOTU speech was straight forward enough to perplex the GOP spin editors…

      3. with GOP hate radio in my ear…

        (Laura Ingram)

        from the tone of her voice she herself was having a hard time believing the propaganda she was trying to make sense with.

        angry to put it lightly…

        this gave me the feeling that President Obama hit the nail on the head. over and over driving it home.

        Funny but the SOTU speech was straight forward enough to perplex the GOP spin editors…

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

136 readers online now

Newsletter

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