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
October 21, 2010 03:51 PM UTC

Thursday Open Thread

  • 131 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“There is a time to take counsel of your fears, and there is a time to never listen to any fear.”

–George S. Patton

Tweet
Share

Comments

131 thoughts on “Thursday Open Thread”

  1. Boy, this just confirmed that to Tank, this election is just all about him and his incredible Conservative Awesomeness.

    In fact, his awesomeness is so boundless, the ACP was blessed by God to be allowed to talk to him.

    Tank came across as an unbelievable Narcissistic jekr who’s primary answer to direct questions was “I don’t care.”

    Yes, voters of Colorado, let’s elect a racist whacko with NO plans and NO issues so he can bask in the reflection of his own glory…

    1. You stand there as if defenseless on Obamacare, illegal aliens, job losses, tax hikes, habitual spending, big government growth, unemployment, ….

      Why don’t you post the interview that you cite above?

      2. You have no problem posting embed codes on endless YouTube videos, I can reasonable assume you can use “The Google.”

        Besides, while you’re there, maybe you can find some unlock codes for WoW…

        1. I’m bitter too:

          Job killing tax hikes, out of control spending, regulatory dampers to economic growth, etc…..

          Say I see Obama’s on the campaign trail … when’s he land in Colorado for a rally?

          Why won’t Obama-Pelosi-Reid come to Colorado to help our congressional delegation defend their votes and positions?

          They came last year to sign the $750 Billion bailout, they came last year to trumpet Obamacare, they came before.

          Where are they now?

          1. ….here’s a Republican’t statement on anything:

            NO!

            Admit it, ‘tad, the Republican’t party is a corrupt, clueless organization that can only talk in bumper-sticker quotes that include either “Socialism,” “Out-of-control” or “Obamacare.”

            They have no real plans for getting the economy going again other than ginormous tax cuts for their billionaire masters.

            Why do Repubs hate middle class Americans, ‘tad? Why do they trumptet their concern for the working family, and then go a on a lobbyist-arranged golf trip and cut a special-interest deal for a sweetheart tax break?

            Why does the Orange Man want to add $4 TRILLION Dollars to the deficit with his party’s fiscal plan?

            http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10…

            Deal with this, ‘tad:

            “The parties share blame for the current fiscal situation, but federal budget statistics show that Republican policies over the last decade, and the cost of the two wars, added far more to the deficit than initiatives approved by the Democratic Congress since 2006, giving voters reason to be skeptical of campaign promises.”

            Got a YouTube video yet?  

    2. It is Well Known, Tankcredo’s narcissism knows no bounds.

      ~When he lied and ignored his OWN term limits pledge.

      ~ while running for president he was labeled a “one-trick-pony” about 72 Hours after he announced.

      ~ He became more and more dismissed as a serious candidate by most national republicans.

      Then this year he side steps any primary Challenge to elbow himself into the General election,. By any means necessary.

      ~ He trashes ANYONE who gets in his way, including the State Chair of his Party whom he claims “allegiance”

      I have no Doubt Tancredo would be a Bigger Clown than Governor. An embarrassment to anyone foolish enough to vote for him.

      1. but I think Ritter has shown us the limits of what any governor can do anyway.

        I believe Colorado’s executive is hamstrung no matter what and has little real power to enact any agenda at all. It is a weak executive state IMO.

        1. AZ “Crypt-keeper” Jan Brewer doesn’t have much power but she’s made AZ a laughingstock of TeaBaggery.  Her and SB1070 sure as hell helped tank tourism & hotels for the fiscal year.  And with all the headless corpses laying about the desert I’m not gonna head down to Tucson anytime soon.

          Any Guv can turn a state into an embarassment so why give Tanc a chance, since we know his past.  

        3. and irrelevant. “I pledge allegiance to Colorado and the tourism industry for which it stands.” Or, in the case of Wyoming, “…and the two votes in the Senate that cancel California’s, for which it stands.”

          Is there something Ritter has done that makes a difference? Anything that he could have done and didn’t (e.g. mandate use of fountain pens by notaries processing real estate documents)? At least he didn’t make CO a laughingstock a a AZ, per VanDammer.

          Counties, on the other hand, make sense. More on this later.

              1. they’ll tell you that “states” are the only things that make sense (even if that pesky Constitution tell us otherwise).

                How many Govs this year brought up secession?  Perry in TX, Steele in VT, ??  Yeah, they like to rattle the cages of their 2nd Amd conceal & carry voters along w/ the annonymous racist TeaBaggers wishing to walkback the Confederate loss.

                With the likes of Perry, Sanford, Palin, Huckabee, Brewer, et al arising from the stink of nutty RW statehouses maybe it is time to consolidate ’em all.  How about a new Old Glory w/ just a single big ‘ol star?

                1. In order to protect slavery, the constitution gave states a “vote” (two each, actually) in the Senate. Apart from reminiscing about the Olde Royal Charters, states, as constituted, have no useful role except to continue the undemocratic rigamarole so evident today.

                  One big star? Seems as good as any other graphic, unless we decide to reduce the national debt by selling the space … golden arches maybe?

        4. Tanc win would basically be non-existent (I don’t know a better word just now, need caffeine).

          The more I think of it, the more I think I’m right.  He doesn’t want to lead (he wants to shout) and there won’t be any loyalty to push his lamebrain ideas through (like Wadhams is going to make the chambers go with it?), so I think Colorado would effectively not have a Governor for four years, or until the citizens of this great state became angry enough to do something unprecedented.

          It would be embarrassing.  But interesting.  And probably ridiculously expensive (woo hoo fiscal conservatives?).

  2. from The Raw Story

    A financial blogger and ex-CEO credited with being one of the original “founders” of the Tea Party has come out against the movement, saying it has been hijacked by the very people it was protesting and is now obsessed with “guns, gays and God.”

    …

    “Yeah, that’s a joke,” he writes. “But so are you. All of you. Especially Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Bob Barr, and douchebag groups such as the ‘Tea Party Patriots.'”

  3. from Eric Lippert (Microsoft)

    Getting software right — by, among other things, ensuring that a legally blind Catalan-speaking Spaniard can easily use the feature without worrying about introducing a new security vulnerability — is rather expensive! But we have to get it right because when we ship a new version of the script engines, hundreds of millions of people will exercise that code, and tens of millions will program against it.

    1. Microsoft blaming legally blind Catalan-speaking Spaniards for their troubles.

      I guess Apple doesn’t have any of those troublesome customers, eh?

  4. I saw these ads and thought great they are finally going to make Howdy Doody: The Movie.

    Than they turned out only to be ads for John Hickenloopoer.  

    Stan Garnett seems to have the same number of ads runnings as John Suthers.  Maybe that race could get close.

    Cary Kennedy’s ads are so superior to Walker Stapleton’s that she should come from behind and win.

    Are Bernie Buescher or Scott Gessler running any ads?

  5. was the most impressive and intelligent colloquy on Pols in the past 3 months.

    Gratifying to see a spirited but respectful exchange of views sans guttersniping.  

      1. I would order the list like this:

        Economy- we need jobs

        Afghanistan- I don’t like Americans dieing

        Education- College is expensive and everything is underfunded in Colorado

        Economic Inequality- tax rates should expire for rich and allow us to help the poor

        Taxes- renew middle class and allow the upper 2% cuts to expire. They already receive more benefits in tax credits and incentives than the poor will ever be able to claim on their taxes

        Deficit- hard one to think about because you have to spend money to have all the services we  from the gov, but it would be nice to curtail spending and start decreasing the deficit and have a surplus (late Clinton era style)

        Gay Rights- I think states will continue to address this and it will be a while before the feds do anything. DADT will be hard to repeal since the Dems are going to lose a lot of sears

        1. I’ll give Arv credit – I have my fights with him, but he’s right – rights to gays are being abridged and everyday that passes is a tragedy

          Gay Marriage needs to be institutionalized, over a Federal basis, immediately – it is in line with our Constitution and the Founding Fathers and every day that goes by without… is a day that we spend being less “American”

          Anything else is a close second – I would personally say restoring the Glass Steagall Act, doing more to wipe away the disastrous effects of inner city redlining (small business loans, school vouchers), revoking Obamacare (and yes, liberal friends, expanding a privitized version of Medicaid in its place to cover the 14 million uninsured), Afghanistan, opening more free trade while removing sanctions, revoking McCain Feingold Campaign Finance, and then, yes, cutting taxes… all close ‘seconds’

          1. I’ll say it’s a tie between Gay Marriage and institutionalizing some sort of program that provides a pathway of citizenship for current illegal immigrants, whether it involves paying back taxes and additional penalties, etc, but the point is getting them on a path to citizenship

            Those are the 2 most important matters in America today

          2. What does a “privitized version of Medicaid.. to cover the 3014 million uninsured” look like?

            Profit motivated insurance that reimburses so poorly that no provider wants to accept it?

            1. Daft – I’m gonna cop out this time and just say that I’m too tired and way too busy right now to give you the fullest answer (again – it’s a cop out – at least I’m owning it?)

              However – MediCal (Medicaid of California) made great strides when they started contracting Medicaid recipients to private HMO’s in California – polls showed that recipients under privitazed care were happier with their healthcare than those on ‘public’ plans, and that the private care was saving money, in comparison

              Another success of MediCal has been county-based health organizations – while not private, they’re run like businesses and have much better success than ‘centralized’ healthcare services

              Lastly – much of our healthcare costs are tangled in an unending stream of bureacracy, and this is where the electronic healthcare record is really going to bring down A LOT of costs, sheerly on the improvement of efficiency

              Overall – there’s a lot of ways to solve this problem, outside of ObamaCare

              1. Yes – you are correct – around 40 million are uninsured

                However – analysis shows that of those 40 million, around 30 million are transient (between jobs), who are about to receive healthcare – what we are really dealing with is around 10 to 14 million Americans who are ‘too rich’ to qualify for MediCaid, but unfortunately, are unlikely to find a healthcare plan that can fit in their family’s budget

                In turn, we’re really dealing with 10 to 14 million, not 40 million

                1. I haven’t seen what I’d consider a serious effort by conservatives to address comprehensive health care reform. So far, I haven’t seen any serious thought given to what you’d conservatives would replace health care reform with.

                  Those 30 million people “between jobs”. What to do with them? They still get sick.

                  Pre-existing conditions? Recision? Caps? Underinsured?

                  And for any plan that relies on “the free market” to bring down costs, I’d love to see credible studies that support the assertion.

        2. What is the legal difference and implication of “civil union” versus “marriage”?

          Is marriage, in fact, a religious status recognized by law?

          What would happen if, from here on out, only civil unions were recognized by law–technically instituted at the time the license is granted–and carrying all rights under law that were formerly attached to “marriage,” leaving “marriage” as optional falderal available in a religious institution for those who wish?

          Please don’t take offense; no advocacy is implied by my questions. And I realize this does not address all issues, most notably DADT, which appears to have gone by the wayside minus a victory ceremony at the Pentagon or White House, which large numbers of people–a minority, but still significant among certain segments–are not prepared to accept.

          Is this an issue that should determine how, or even whether, one votes?

          1. Usually, I would say I’m cool with civil unions

            However – I would be pretty damn offended if the government said tomorrow, “You know, we’ll call Muslim marriages ‘civil unions’ and everyone else can have a ‘marriage,’ because Islam is a cult”

            I guess I can compromise with civil unions… but it’s a tough pill to swallow

            1. The idea is that civil unions, and only civil unions–as evidenced by granting a government marriage license, which has long been required of everyone–are recognized by law. What individuals do and do not do in the sphere of religion, including “marriage” by clergy of whatever faith, is up to them, none of the government’s business.

              1. by downgrading everyone to civil unions.  It’s time, as the California court recognized, to make full marriage available to same sex couples.  What’s the difference between civil unions and marriage.  Simple.

                 R E S P E C T.

                1. …then let’s go for it.

                  R E S P E C T because the Fairie Queen waved her wand over the star-struck couple in the Temple of Dazzle?

                  R E S P E C T mandated by the legislature?

                  Good grief.

                  1. and tell her our marriage is just a “civil union.”  Tell it to our kids and our grand kids.  

                      No, we don’t level down by giving gays a second-class relationship and lowering everybody else to a second-class relationship.  We give gays what they deserve — first class status.  Marriage.

                      I used to be a civil union guy but reading the california court decision convinced me that’s just a “separate but equal” thing and separate just isn’t equal.

                     

                    1. nearly 27 years ago and it has never seemed like a downgrade or a union that lacks respect. I don’t think our kids have any doubts about our union. We don’t have any grandkids to weigh in on the topic, but the dogs seem quite happy with the feeding schedule.

                      I might be missing the subtleties of your comments. Just trying to understand …

                      (FWIW — I guess I tend to agree that civil union for all to appease the government and let the religious institutions decide who they will allow to participate in marriage ceremonies performed through the religious institution. Also, let’s do away with tax exempt status for religious institutions and for the love of the higher power, what a few worthwhile not-for-profit organizations couldn’t do with all the dough that gets dumped into the campaigns of politicians who are unable fulfill their promises to us. I digress.)

                    2. is still a marriage, it is just conferred by a civil officer.  Look at your “Marriage License”.

                      It is also recognized in all 50 states and by the federal government.

                    3. There is a civil marriage, like before a judge, and a religious marriage, but they are both marriages.  True, I was married in a church, but I was then, and now, an agnostic. It was something I did to humor my wife’s family, which was very religious, and the minister was a good friend of ours.  My daughter was married before a judge.

                       But a marriage is a marriage, whether civil or religious.  Both have the same standing in law.

                        Civil Union, or domestic partnership, in states like Vermont that have them, is something different.  It’s a separate but equal thing, theory being “How can we satisfy the gays need for respect without really treating them the same as heterosexuals.=?”

                        The answer is — you can’t.

                        A civil marriage, before a judge or whatever, is still a marriage, recognized by the 50 states and the federal goveernment. A civil union is none of these things.

                        Could you downgrade marriage laws in all 50 states to only confer “civil unions.”  Well, not without setting off a war with 100 million or so married people.

                        You were married, you have a “husband.”  You’re a “wife.”  

                         I think you’d resent it if the government sent you a notice saying “We have altered your status from “married” to “legally shacking up.”  And then you’d know how gay couples feel.

                        I supported the Ref I campaign to pass civil unions in Colorado.  At the time I thought it was the way to go.  But we failed.  At this point, I’ve given up on the whole Plessy v. Ferguson separate but equal thing and believe in marriage equality.  Let gays and straights both marry, before a judge, or a rabbi, or my dachshund, whatever they want.  (Though I don’t advise the dachshunds.  They would want the whole ceremony to be about rubbing their bellies.)

                         

                    4. I get it.

                      I also supported Ref I and will never understand why the gov’t is involved in deciding who a person can marry.

                3. My favorite New Yorker cartoon on the issue was about 5 years or so ago.

                  With the quintessential middle-aged couple sitting in their respective easy chairs.

                  The husband’s reading the newspaper, turns to his wife and says,

                  “Now gays want to get married! Haven’t they suffered enough?”

                  1. Why shouldn’t they pay the marriage penalty on their taxes the same as we do?

                    Cheating the taxpayers 100 times a day by filing political posts from his government-paid job.–bjwilson83

                    2. Okay, I’m exaggerating.  But not much.  Quote after quote from Kennedy from Lawrence v. Texas.  The judge knows where the swing vote is on this case.

                      as I said a few weeks ago in a long article on pols, I also was impressed by the importance of the rising number of gay couples with kids.  For them, civil unions really do confer second-class status.

            2. wouldn’t be too thrilled to be “married” in Vermont, “civil unioned” in New Hampshire, and “just buddies” in Rhode Island during a one week trip through New England….

              This needs to be addressed at the Federal level.  

              1. By some magic or other, states do, or are meant to, recognize the state of “marriage” or “civil union” conferred by other states. Seem to recall various moves to rescind this fact in the case of link-ups involving same-gender couples; that’s what needs to be eliminated–by federal courts.

                IF it’s purely a matter of vocabulary, crossing from VT to MA and on to Little Rhody, so what?

                OTOH, I wouldn’t mind roaming New England with my One and Only. All sorts of rules, regulations, and laws on the books leave me unimpressed. Indeed, I’m ignorant of most of them, I’m sure.

                1. different rights and responsibilities…but the biggest issue is the federal recognition of these relationships whatever they are called.  

                  Really though, we are talking about treating everyone equitably.  If you are straight, have a wedding in Iowa and move to Texas because your spouse has a job opportunity….you are still married (in the eyes of both Texas and the Federal Government) under the Full Faith and Credit Act.  My partner and I, not so much….DOMA (which was recently ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge is is currently on appeal….by the Obama Administration) prevents this.

                  1. 1. There should be a single status, non religious. As a matter of curiosity, what are a couple of examples of the differences between “marriage”  and “civil union”?

                    2. Married in the eyes of the federal government? Does that change if you move from Mass to Colo? How?

                    Let me be clear here: I don’t think government at any level should acknowlege acts by religious actors. And I agree that civil unions in one state should be recognized by all.

      2. 1)  Civil Rights.  (Gays just happens to be the group that is being slighted right now.  Would anyone have had the gall to tell an African American in the 1950’s that the economy was more important than their having equality?  If not, then don’t tell me my and my family’s rights should take a back seat to any other issue)

        2)  Economy/Economic Inequality

        3)  Education

        4)  Deficit

        5)  Taxes

        1. I have never really thought of it that way. Denying anyone a right and telling them they are not equal is a far bigger issue. So maybe I need to re-rank my list. I like the fact that you put it as civil rights because that addresses all disenfranchised groups and not just one

            1. I think you would enjoy a book that I just read in regards to your current voting issue. It is called Uneasy Alliances by Paul Frymer. The book discusses electoral capture of African American voters, but also has chapters on the electoral capture of gays and other disenfranchised groups. I also emailed the author and got an afterward he wrote on the election of Obama, let em know if you would want that chapter on PDF.

              Link:

              http://www.amazon.com/Uneasy-A…

               

            2. Gay rights are an extremely important issue. But if you’re going to compare yourself to Rosa Parks, I think maybe you should think about the fact that African Americans didn’t get civil rights from purely political action. They protested and risked a lot, and I honestly have not seen much protest in the last couple decades for gay rights. Sure, there’s Dan Choi, but who else (and why do only a few dozen people ever show up to his events)? Change happens at multiple levels, not just at the top.

              Democrats who support gay rights take a risk in doing it. It’s not always popular. People like Bennet and Perlmutter took a stand for you, in spite of the fact that as recently as 2004 one could win an election based on nothing more than opposition to gay marriage. They stood up for you when things were difficult. Why do you abandon them at the first sign of trouble?

            3. I didn’t hear anybody say go to the back of the bus and shut the hell up.  I did hear many people, myself included, tell you to yell like hell like every other oppressed group has done to get their rights.  I also heard many people, myself included, tell you that refusing to vote for candidates who support your civil rights was an unproductive path that will not get you closer to your goal but will push you (and the rest of us) farther from the goal of a just and prosperous nation.  

              I betcha $5 that Rosa Parks voted.  What do you think?

        2. even when progress on civil rights was frustratingly slow throughout the 50s and 60s. They tended to think it was better to support the party that was (slowly) working toward full equality, rather than letting the party who believed they shouldn’t exist at all win.

          It’s actually an excellent analogy, but I don’t think it supports your view. How many African Americans in the late 50s would have said, “I’d rather have the party that calls me n****r and says I can’t live or work or vote or marry however I want, than the party who supports me in every way but hasn’t yet eliminated racism”?

          2. after the civil war the Republican party represented the issues and concern of African Americans when they gained the right to vote. They continued to represent them until the party fractured in the 1920’s. Read the book I suggested to Arvadonian above, Uneasy Alliances by Paul Frymer

            1. or even in the 1920s. By the New Deal, African Americans were pretty firmly Democrats on the whole, although of course it wasn’t until the mid 60s that one started seeing 90% support for Democrats.

          3. It was the southern Democrats who gave us Jim Crow laws and it wasn’t until the Civil Rights act of 1964 (spearheaded by nothern Republicans and Democrats) that many of those democrats left the party.

            Historically, it was the Republican Party that was the stronger supporter of AA civil rights.

            1. obviously, and I’m not talking about the late 1800s when black voters were overwhelmingly Republican.

              But even in the 1950s African Americans were voting for Democrats over Republicans, despite the fact that some of the worst politicians were white Southern Democrats like Strom Thurmond. That’s because at the federal level, most of the support for civil rights still came from Democrats. Lyndon Johnson was the one who made the 1957 civil rights bill happen, weak as it was. Outside the South, Democrats were the party that supported African Americans.

              Black voters have been supporting Democrats in large majorities since the New Deal. Even Eisenhower in 1956 got only 40% of the black vote, the highest percentage any Republican got since 1936.

              1. is not telling the whole story.  Remember, blacks were killed in the south for trying to register to vote, so the vote was suppressed (and the people doing the suppressing were more often than not Southern Democrats–who are now Republicans).

                1. More and more you strike me as someone who’s not interested in an honest debate, which is why I think my initial reaction that this is a publicity stunt is correct.

                  1. “outside the south” prior to your reference to the 1956 election.  I was pointing out that black southern vote was suppressed so the 40% number, while accurate for those voting, does not create an entire picture.

                    Furthermore, Stevenson, the democratic candidate in 1956, swept the southern states.  It would be a bit of a jump to assume that southern blacks, had they had access to the polls, would have voted the same way as their white neighbors did, wouldn’t you agree?

                    As to the “publicity stunt” allegation, if I wanted publicity, I’d print my name.  

                    5. Now that I’m no longer a Republican, I’ve had to come to grips with this wine and cheese thing.;-)

                    9. but publicity for an issue. Still a stunt though, and kind of harebrained. Hopefully people who care about gay rights will still prevent the election of someone who thinks of Arvadonian as being no better than a drunk.

      3. 1) Afghanistan & Iraq: the sooner we get out, the sooner we can stop the gush of money out of our economy. We also stop making more wounded vets (and orphaned families) before the cost kills us down the road. My FRAGO for Delta is bring me Bin laden in an orange jumpsuit, or in bite-sized pieces in a medical waste container. And get SPC Bergdahl by any means necessary (bribe, trade whatever!)

        2) Taxes – set a stable tax policy that individuals and businesses can count on for a while. Make the Obama/Dem tax plan for individuals last at least 10 years.  Convene a special committee like BRAC to analyze corporate tax policy against the top ten global competitors as rated by The Economist. Fund it with a fixed budget and insulate it from congressional, lobbyist and executive influence. Policy gets presented to Congress as a “take it or leave it” up-or-down vote with no amendments.

        3) Deficit – now that you have the two biggest influences on the Federal Budget dealt with, start reviewing the Budget line by line – like Obama’s already been doing. Mandate a 10% across-the-board cut to all three branches of gov’t. Change Federal allowances to be taxable at the higher GS and SEC levels. Reduced the civillian workforce in DoD and replace with military, and reduce outsourced contracting by at least 25%. Look at moving more offices of the Federal Gov’t OUT of DC an into the states, where they can have an impact on the local economy, and where locality pay and allowances are lower.

        4) Economy – Focus on stimulating small business, in areas where smaller investment can have an immediate impact on local economies. Not only end tax breaks for outsourcing jobs, penalize companies with tariffs and taxes. Start agressively policing corporate tax writeoffs, andgrant regulatory relief and  expand tax credits for companies that re-start manufacturing jobs in the Green or High Tech sector.

        5) Education – expand the GI Bill to include all veterans and include a provision for educating the chronic unemployed in selected Associate Degrees.  Don’t screw with the new Student loan system, and include loan forgiveness if student go into education, engineering or nursing. Fully fund Troops to Teachers with bonuses for grad that take assignments in the toughest schools.

        6) Gay Rights – I don’t mean to say this is the least important, but people are willing to deal with change when times are good than when things are tough. Eisenhower made Civil Rights a priority in the 50’s when the economy was good – I think the same approach is necessary….

      4. They are all priorities.

        They all deserve to be number one. They all need to be addressed.

        How would you prioritze the following:

        Hand wringing

        Bitching and moaning about the other guys

        Complaining about your guy

        Raising money to get elected

        Governing

  6. The parties share blame for the current fiscal situation, but federal budget statistics show that Republican policies over the last decade, and the cost of the two wars, added far more to the deficit than initiatives approved by the Democratic Congress since 2006, giving voters reason to be skeptical of campaign promises.

    Calculations by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and other independent fiscal experts show that the $1.1 trillion cost over the next 10 years of the Medicare prescription drug program, which the Republican-controlled Congress adopted in 2003, by itself would add more to the deficit than the combined costs of the bailout, the stimulus and the health care law.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10…

    So, again, why should we vote these jackholes back into power? Because they use the word “socialist” all the time?

  7. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has granted the Obama Administration’s request to temporarily freeze the repeal of DADT.

    This is great news for the administration that is fighting hard, spending taxpayer money (some of which comes from gay and lesbian taxpayers, I might add) to continue the practice of discharging gays and lesbians from the military.

    “Fierce defender” my ass….  

    1. if he leaves it alone and decides to participate in the “normal legal process” he gets his way and can still say “well, we tried to defend the intent of Congress.”

      Stupid, stupid, stupid. DoD got their FRAGO on this almost a year ago. They don’t need time to examine the implications, they just need to deal with it and act.

      Line troops don’t care. Support troops don’t care. Commanders have been turning a blind eye since 9/11 to keep their good troops. It seems the only people with their OD boxers in a bind are the pampered Generals and Admirals who haven’t served in a line unit since Vietnam.  

          1. ..when I get in a hurry when I write on the iPhone, I tend to use acronyms, esp when I’m talking about the military.

            Don’t try and follow the Denver Vet Court minutes…we sound like a bad war movie.

            2. I’ve been working with the DoD for a pretty good chunk of time now and can deal with it.  When I first started though I would mutter “uh-huh” on the phone while desperately trying to scribble these new… words.

              Go go Gadget Google.

              On the plus side, when I sit and listen to my granddads I get extra brownie points for knowing.

    2. Back in the Bad Old Days (e.g., up until 18 months ago), if you were a gay American diplomat and asked your lover to accompany you on a 2 or 3 year posting overseas, you could have your pet(s) put on your USG travel orders, but not your partner.

      If ‘nonessential’ American diplomatic personnel were ordered evacuated from a host country for one reason or another (a not uncommon occurrence), the USG would pay to ship your pet back to Washington. But your partner was left to make – and pay for – her/own travel arrangements.

      One of Hillary’s first acts as SecState was to put a stop to this nonsense for gay couples – as well as for unmarried straight couples, thankfully.  

  8. Check out the Tancredo interview in today’s Financial Times, wherein he explains how Maes won the primary:

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6e02…

    Anti-immigrant hardliner gains

    By Edward Luce in Denver

    Published: October 20 2010 21:08 | Last updated: October 20 2010 21:08

    Conservative voters in Colorado are swinging increasingly behind Tom Tancredo, a hardline anti-immigrant candidate who has eclipsed the Republican nominee to come within four points of John Hickenlooper, the Democrat until recently the favourite for state governor.

    Pollsters say a victory for Mr Tancredo, who ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 on a platform of deporting America’s 12m illegal immigrants, is still unlikely. But they no longer rule it out. A poll this week for Fox News shows Mr Tancredo with 42 per cent against 46 per cent for Mr Hickenlooper, who is mayor of Denver.

    “About half of those planning to vote in Colorado describe themselves as conservative,” says Floyd Ciruli, an analyst. “Until recently that vote was split, giving Hickenlooper an easy ride to the governorship. But now it doesn’t look such an easy ride.”

    A victory for Mr Tancredo, who is standing for the US Constitution party, would drop a bombshell on American politics. The former congressman, who has recommended the US bomb Mecca if there is another terrorist attack, has built his campaign on grassroots resentment of illegal immigration in Colorado at a time of rising blue-collar joblessness.

    As governor, he says he would simply enforce existing laws that require employers to check the immigrant status of their workers – the e-verify system – and the bureaucracy to deny social services to undocumented workers. Mr Tancredo has also been assisted by a badly managed Republican campaign.

    Dan Maes, the Republican nominee, who was an early favourite of the Tea Party, has been plagued by questions over his rГ©sumГ©. Mr Maes is now hovering at about 10 per cent in the polls. Mr Tancredo told the Financial Times on Wednesday: “Dan Maes got the nomination because a very powerful group of wealthy Democratic homosexuals, known as Coda [Colorado Democratic Alliance] put money behind his primary campaign knowing it would be cheaper than fighting a viable Republican candidate in the general election. Now his campaign is imploding.”

    Progressive groups in Colorado view the prospect of a Tancredo governorship with horror. In a recent advertisement, Mr Tancredo highlighted the story of Marten Kudlis, a three-year-old who died in an Aurora Baskin Robbins ice cream parlour when a car ploughed into the store. The driver, Francis Hernandez, was an undocumented immigrant.

    “The illegal alien had been arrested 16 times but never turned over to immigration because of the sanctuary city policies that Mayor [John] Hickenlooper supports,” says the boy’s father in the ad. “I am sending you Marten’s picture, Mr. Mayor. Try to sleep at night knowing your policy contributed to his death.”

    Mr Hickenlooper won plaudits in August for running one of the most widely cited advertisements of this campaign showing him getting in and out of a shower repeatedly and fully clothed to wash himself off after viewing Colorado’s increasingly nasty attack ads. The state has a large legal Hispanic minority, who are considered less likely to vote at all than in 2008, when they went strongly Democratic.

    2. The park case was about an Executive department regulation; since it isn’t a law, the Executive is more free to do with it as it will.  (And provided the group does not interfere with public access to the park, I agree with the ruling…)

      DADT, as we have pointed out, is a law, passed by Congress, which the President swears an oath to execute and uphold.

      1. The Administration wants Congress to do away with it, because that’s where the law originated. It would set a bad precedent for him to eliminate DADT by Executive Order.

        He could, but it could lead to a President doing away with any law by Executive Order. President Bush added his signing statements to laws, which was an interesting if not unethical way to get around such concerns.

    3. here

      How to Really End ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

      By WALTER DELLINGER

      The decision will strike some people as odd, since popular belief holds that the president, who has said he opposes the law, can make the policy go away by simply letting the lower court order stand. In fact, the administration is required to comply with the law and defend it in court, regardless of Mr. Obama’s personal views.

      Fortunately, there is another, seemingly contradictory step the White House could take that would not only make its position clear, but deal a significant blow to the law’s prospects: while continuing to appeal the ruling, the administration could inform the courts that it believes “don’t ask, don’t tell” is unconstitutional.

      1. …in defense of the Obama team if they do not appeal the decision it basically leaves the issue on hold but undecided in a lower court. If it goes through the legislative branch it would take elevation to the Supreme Court to overturn it. That is my “dime store” legal opinion but that is how I would understand the issue.  

        1. …we are saying the same thing just coming at it from diffent angles. In other words as you have quoted, cause it to become a constituional question.  

  11. Nationally there’s an unexpected surge in Democratic mail-in voting. However, Colorado is one of the fewer states where Republicans are leading in the voting trends.

    So in a year when the Colorado GOP might have elected dogcatchers as Senator and Governor, they nominate … dogs.

    And then they hope that a stray mutt named Tancredo might save their bacon in one race.

    But sure, let’s let these wonderfully competent, thoughtful, mature people run our state!

  12. Both the IAVA and the DAV legislative ratings are compiled for this current session of Congress, and are found here:

    http://iavaaction.org/report-card

    and

    http://dav.capwiz.com/dav/keyv…

    Both cite their legislative priorities for the year, and have comprehensive databases for both houses of Congress. (Except the DAV, which lists every Senator as unable to vote. I’ve emailed the webmaster.) Both organizations play fair, and only ding a member of Congress on a vote if that organization has informed that member that a particular piece of legislation is important to them.

    So the Grades (IAVA/DAV)

    Rep Diana DeGette: B/A

    Rep Jared Polis: C/A

    Rep John Salazar: B/A

    Rep Betsy Markey: A+/A

    Rep Doug Lamborn: C/A

    Rep Mike Coffman: C/C

    Rep Ed Perlmutter: B/A

    Average Dem grade: B/A

    Average Repub grade: C/B

    So, Polis, Coffman and Lamborn are on IAVA’s sh*t list, while only Coffman is on the DAV’s.

    You’d think the Repubs would try an do a better job with the demographic that supposedly supports them. Maybe AD and vets have figured out that they’re just being used by Repubs?

  14. The straw votes that Pols does on the various races are fun and quick.

    How about if Pols takes the key statewide races and asks folks to predict how many raw votes the candidates will get.

    It will be interesting to see how many people thinks Maes will exceed or fall short of the votes he got in the primary.

  15. I’m shocked, I tell ya…….


    Breaking News Alert

    The New York Times

    Thu, October 21, 2010 — 5:53 PM ET

    —–

    Top Corporations Helping U.S. Chamber of Commerce Influence Campaigns

    Prudential Financial sent in a $2 million donation last year

    as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce launched a national

    advertising campaign to weaken the historic rewrite of the

    nation’s financial regulations.

    Dow Chemical delivered $1.7 million to the chamber last year

    as the group took a leading role in aggressively fighting

    proposed new rules to tighten security requirements on

    chemical facilities.

    And Goldman Sachs, Chevron Texaco, and Aegon, a multinational

    insurance company based in the Netherlands, donated more than

    $8 million in recent years to a chamber foundation seeking to

    limit the ability of trial lawyers to sue businesses.

    These large donations — none of which were publicly

    disclosed by the chamber — offer a glimpse of the chamber’s

    money-raising efforts, which it has ramped up recently in an

    orchestrated campaign to become one of the most well-financed

    critics of the Obama administration and an influential player

    in this fall’s Congressional elections.

    Read More:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10…

    —–

    Now get New York Times breaking news alerts sent to your mobile phone.

    Sign up by texting NEWSALERTS to 698698 (NYTNYT).

    —–

    About This E-Mail

    You received this message because you are signed up to receive breaking news

    alerts from NYTimes.com.

    To unsubscribe, change your e-mail address or to sign up for daily headlines

    or other newsletters, go to:

    http://www.nytimes.com/email

    NYTimes.com

    620 Eighth Ave.

    New York, NY 10018

    Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company

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

162 readers online now

Newsletter

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