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
November 05, 2010 07:01 PM UTC

GOP Extinction?

  • 164 Comments
  • by: Muhammad Ali Hasan

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Why The GOP Is Going Extinct

By Muhammad Ali Hasan

Originally published in the Huffington Post – thank you Matt Sledge, Ethan Axelrod, and of course, Arianna Huffington.

ARTICLE:

It is not a joke – the Republican Party is on its way to extinction.

Scientifically, political extinction happens when too many demographical groups turn their backs and never forgive, almost to a point of irrationality – because as the data below suggests, we should never underestimate a group’s ability to register more voters, gain more sympathizers, and vote in higher numbers, all for the sake of eradicating an entity that they detest.

In that way, the Tea Party may have done irreparable damage to the Republican Party for these reasons –

1. Supporting Arizona SB 1070

2. Supporting a Revocation of the 14th Amendment

3. Supporting California’s Proposition 8

4. Being Against the Ground Zero Mosque in New York City

Conservative pundits will bloviate that none of the issues above deal with hatred, but to demographical groups, such pandering will fall on deaf ears. Recent polling in Arizona shows that Latino voters overwhelmingly reject SB 1070, with 70% against and 11% in favor, including reports from The Arizona Republic newspaper that Latino voters in Arizona are increasingly registering with the Democratic Party, since the passage of SB 1070. Similar patterns, if studied, could probably be found with Gays and Muslims.

But so what? Perhaps Republicans can survive without the collective votes of Latinos, Gays, and Muslims, considering that the issues above could please the general electorate so much to the point that these minorities become irrelevant? After all, recent polls indicate that most Americans seem to support SB 1070, remain conflicted over gay marriage, and are against the Ground Zero Mosque.

But here’s the miscalculation of political opportunity – it is one thing to be against universal healthcare, school funding, or welfare programs, because after all, for Republicans, it is easy to respond with the reasoning that, despite our wealth, America simply cannot afford certain programs. However, when asked why Republicans do not support the liberties of Gays, Latinos, and Muslims, there is no fiscally conscious answer available – and that’s when the pool of bigotry has been waded into.

Now, consider the devastation the GOP saw in California after the passage of Proposition 187 in 1994, a law that would halt government services to illegal immigrants, including public education. Yes, 187 did pass and it proved to be a short-term boon for the GOP, helping Republicans in capturing the State Assembly, coming very close to capturing the State Senate, and propelling Republican Governor Pete Wilson back into the Governor’s mansion. However, it did not take long for a fallout to be realized. Shortly after the passage of 187 and its subsequent revocation by the California Supreme Court, Republicans would go on to lose the State Assembly by wide margins, realize wider gaps in the State Senate, and lose the Governor’s mansion.

In examining this California fallout, a few facts to consider –

First, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, based on national statistics, as of August of 2009, 38% of Latinos affiliated themselves with the Democratic Party, while only 13% affiliated with the Republican Party, a tough 25% differential for the GOP. However, in California, based on 2010 numbers, it is reported that 58% of California Latinos affiliate with the Democratic Party, while only 19% affiliate with the Republicans, a devastating 39% differential for the GOP.

Second, from 2000 to 2008, Latinos have accounted for around 86% of California’s growth, with an increasing number registering to vote.

To ignore the impact of these trends would be a mistake, because no event in recent California history directly affected the Latino community more than Prop 187, which was supported by around 27% of Latino voters in California, with an overwhelming 73% against it, the biggest margin amongst any demographical group that voted against Prop 187.

But the most devastating fact? As future generations of Latinos in California rise to vote, it seems that the voters of yesterday have a deep influence, because statistics indicate that Republicans are growing even more increasingly unpopular with the new Latino voters of California.

And perhaps, the best evidence of this matter is the fact that Republican candidate for Governor of California in 2010, Meg Whitman, actively put up billboards throughout the State that read, “No a la Proposicion 187 y NO a la Ley de Arizona – Meg Whitman,” which in English translates to, “I am against 187 and the Arizona law – Meg Whitman.”

The fact that Whitman even brings up Prop 187, a 1994 proposition, sixteen years later in 2010, best demonstrates that this matter of bigotry has not been settled within the minds of California’s Latino voters and their sympathizers.

Another example would be the gay marriage votes in California, over these past ten years. In 2000, Californians voted on Proposition 22, a ballot initiative that would define marriage to be between a man and a woman, a direct hit against Gay couples. The initiative would pass, with around 61% in favor and around 39% against, despite California’s Supreme Court eventually striking it down. However, in 2008, Californians again voted on the same issue, but this time Proposition 8, an amendment that would overturn the newly enacted laws allowing Gay couples to marry – while Proposition 8 passed, it was only by a margin of around 52% in favor, with around 48% against. Thus, in less than ten years, California had gone from a State that is overwhelmingly against gay marriage, to one that is starting to come in favor, a victory for the Gay activists who registered in greater numbers and galvanized sympathizers.

However, this is all a small explosion within a larger mushroom cloud, when you consider that the GOP is not only positioning itself to lose Latinos, Gays, and Muslims, but they’re also positioning themselves to lose the demographical group that most sympathizes with these minorities – the 18 to 29 year old voters.  

Consider the recent poll numbers of our rising voters, those aged 18 to 29:

– They support gay marriage

– They approve of the Justice Department’s decision to challenge Arizona’s SB 1070

– They have a favorable opinion of Muslims and support the Ground Zero Mosque

Now, many will say that such opinions are irrelevant, considering that young voters always sympathize with liberal causes? Surely, this is all just pattern of nature, because people always grow to become more Conservative, or by the hopes of some Conservative leaders, more bigoted?

With that said, some shocking results that recent polls have revealed of Americans aged 18-29:

– Their views of labor unions are declining at significant rates

– A majority of them disapprove of President Obama’s handling of healthcare and they are evenly split, within the margin of error, in terms of supporting a full repeal of ObamaCare

– A majority agree that “cutting taxes is an effective way to increase economic growth”

– The most trusted political institution amongst this demographic, more so than Obama’s Presidency, Pelosi’s Congress, or Souter’s Supreme Court, is the United States Military

Granted, polls will also show this demographic to sympathize with universal health care and social programs, but based on the above, it can be argued that the majority of this demographic leans fiscal conservative, in their hesitation to support ObamaCare, as well as their belief that tax cuts, ultimately, are good for the country.

Thus, unlike generations of the past, the young Americans of today are not hyper-Socialists who are looking to champion fiscal liberal causes – in actuality, our young voters are already reconciling Conservative tendencies with social liberal attitude, indicating that they are probably more likely to create a fiscal conservative wing out of the Democratic Party, rather than settle for the Republican Party.

So where does that leave the GOP?

One campaign season of championing Prop 187 devastated the GOP in California. And in this year of 2010, we have seen our GOP leadership champion similar initiatives against three demographical groups – Muslims, Gays, and Latinos – in essence, taking what Prop 187 did to California Republicans, multiplying it by three, and producing a new revenge that will eventually be exacted upon the national GOP.

Maybe I’m wrong? After all, the Republicans did win 2010.

But you know what? The California GOP also won 1994.

But yes, maybe this is all hogwash? Maybe I’m misreading America? Maybe the Republicans will actually go on to build a permanent majority, based on Tea Party values? And should that scenario actually play out, with Tea Partying Republicans continuing campaigns of hatred, followed by one win after the other, then sadly, we will have not realized the extinction of the Republican Party…

No… we will have realized the death of America.

Tweet
Share

Comments

164 thoughts on “GOP Extinction?”

  1. right up until the “death of America line”. I think it is pretty arrogant to think that the death of your party results in the death of your country. After all, we’ve seen many major parties come and go over the years.

    If this GOP, who has become a slave to its own fringe and lost sight of the goals, does fall, it will be replaced with another party will step forward to continue championing fiscal conservativism, but without the hate and bigotry that is holding back the GOP.

    If the Libertarians will stop competing with the Tea Party for the not-job award, maybe they can step into that role.

    Or maybe the ACP can capitalize on it’s recent promotion to major party status here in CO to start growing support.

    Who can say what the future will bring. But I am confidant that the central tenants of America will survive, no matter which party prevails.  

    1. I interpreted Ali’s last line to suggest that if these bigoted actions do not result in the death of the Republican party, if instead the GOP embraces their tea party wing’s exhibitions of hatred, then America, and “American values,” are going to be in a world of hurt.

      But maybe your take is closer to Ali’s intent? I bet we’ll find out soon!

      2. I understood him to mean that the death of america, because of the rise of hatred and bigotry, is an even bigger loss than just losing the R party.  

        1. I’m already falling more in love with Ardy!

          That said – yes, Ardy is correct

          I think the Tea Party is on the doorstep of extinction and they’ll take the GOP with them

          But if they actually win – if their agenda of 1070, 14th Amendment revokation, and anti-gay measures do appeal to America and continue to win – then yes – the death of America will have happened, because of our system of civil liberties is GONE – and that’s what makes America, America

          Extinction happens like this – if Republicans lose the SouthWest (Texas, California, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico) just on the grounds of bigotry towards Latinos, they’re finished – it’s impossible to win the White House without taking some of those States

          As it is, California is BLUE – Colorado is BLUE – New Mexico is on its way

          Nevada – on its way

          Arizona is the best holdout, but we’ll see what the future holds

          The big one though – once Texas falls (which it probably will by 2016) the GOP is done

          1. Well, in that case, I agree 100%.

            I guess I just connected it to “…not just the extinction of the republican party…”

            So I read that if the Republican party itself actually falls, versus simply being taken over.

            But yes, now I see what you meant.  

          2. I wish you good luck (sincerely).  Others, like Bill Kaufman, have tried before you–without success.  I don’t think your party is salvageable.

            One logical alternative is to do what Arlen did, and join the Democratic Party.  If it is a big enough tent to include Betsy Markey and Keith Ellison and Russ Feingold and Ben Nelson, it ought to be big enough to encompass your views.  In fact, the New Democrats version of the Democratic Party is a lot like the GOP circa 1956.

      4. to say that the death of the Republican Party would be the death of America.  This is a wonderful, astute article and what I believe Ali is pointing out is that if these campaigns of hatred, instead of leading to extinction for the GOP, lead to success, that would spell death for the America we love.   Am I right, Ali?

    2. You say:

      After all, we’ve seen many major parties come and go over the years.

      Since at least 1860 — 150 years ago — there have only been two “major” parties. Both have evolved and continue to do so.

      IF either the Libertarians or the Constitutionists emerge (one election in Kentucky?), it will be by influencing the Republican party. The struggle there is already on: Teahadists vs. Old Timey Country Clubbers. There are elaborate mechanisms in Congress to prevent, or at least slow to a crawl, any radical change in either party. By their nature, revolutions aren’t voted in–or out.

      Will Republicans gradually become a permanent minority? IF you think ethnic identity or religious identity is/are the determining factors, maybe so. But I suggest we not forget the economic trends in the United States. One would think they point to an ascending Democratic Party; so far, little sign that it’s happening. Maybe whatever is wrong with Kansas is contagious.

    3. Ali is exactly right. Few young people identify with the Republican party because they are seen as overwhelmingly bigoted and rigid. But what he fails to see is this: you cannot separate fiscal conservatism from social progressiveness. When you care about people — all people — you invest in programs that help them live better lives. When you care about people, you don’t want them poisoned or murdered by lack of manufacturing regulations. When you care about people, you want to educate their kids in public schools, where all kids who deserve a fighting chance, get one. The conservatives will always be linked to corporate greed and lawlessness, and there is no escaping that reality.

      1. Nancy, to me, caring is better facilitated by giving opportunities to people, not opening social programs and imposing overzealous regulations

        We need great Universities, solid public schools, and loans readily available to people who wanna start small businesses – those are the roots of the American Dream

        Outside of that, while some programs/regulations are needed, I worry that in our haste to take people’s money away (for the sake of opening social programs) we end up destroying chances of opportunity, rather than empowering them

        …and to me, that is not the most ‘compassionate’ way of going about helping humanity

      2. Gay rights is a social progressive issue that doesn’t cost any money. In fact, it would bring more money in which would reduce the gov’t reliance on other taxes.

        There are many other examples of social issues championed by progressives that are much more of a moral issue than a fiscal one.

  2. I wish the USA had more of a parliamentary system at times – one that truly allowed for multiple parties rather than two, so that people could align according to what really matters most to them – the social conservatives can have one party, the fiscals, another, progressives another, unions/workers another, and whatever other groups exist. Elections are increasingly becoming about party instead of the individuals running for them anyway.

    Anyway, the two party system’s big flaw is exposed by this disintegration and radicalization of the GOP. (It’s not a cause, mind you – the GOP’s apparent wish for power at any cost is.) That flaw is that coalitions need to be crafted within parties instead of among them. The Republicans have been using social issues to get the bigots to vote for them, while their primary focus, once in power, has been fiscal issues that seem designed to allow the wealthy the means to keep acquiring an increasingly unfair share of the pie for themselves,* with the majority of Americans finding it impossible to really better their lot like they used to.

    The GOP is not serious about “preserving marriage,” or “protecting the border,” or “balancing the budget,” or “creating a free market,” or nearly anything else they say they want to accomplish. Their record reflects this.

    Ultimately, if people are going to allow themselves to be emotionally manipulated by these tactics (and if the Dems are going to continue to let the GOP do whatever they want to without challenge), we’re getting the government we deserve. And since both parties are most interested in remaining the only ones to choose from, we’ll never have another realistic option.

    The GOP is overplaying their hand, I believe, and they are heading in the direction California’s Republicans did in the 90s, as Ali asserts. But I don’t believe that California is America in miniature, so it’s harder to say that the GOP will end up as irrelevant nationally as it is in California. It largely depends on whether the Democrats can truly find a place for the old line Republicans who find the current GOP unwelcoming. The grumbling of progressives makes me think that will be an uneasy partnership, and the current GOP leadership are experts and dividing and conquering.

    The next few years will be very interesting.

    * There will be those who believe that anything “earned” deserves to belong to the person who “earns” them, but when the playing field is so unlevel, and since the largest companies don’t practice real free market principles in conducting their business, it’s hard to define their income as really and truly “earned.”  

    1. I do think the lessons of California can be applied

      Prop 187 wasn’t talked about too much, outside of California, back in 1994

      However, Jan Brewer and 1070 became Tea Party rallying calls – if Latinos in California can continue being so inflamed over 187, then the same can be said for Latinos nationwide, with 1070 – and I do think 1070 became a nationwide campaign, not just a State-centric one

      1. …I really don’t think Latinos are going to be quick to forgive the Republican Party

        Yes – Susanna Martinez won in NM, but we gotta remember that Martinez heavily supports a guest worker program that will lead to citizenship and is against 1070 – she is LUCKY that she won her primary

        Had those views come out before the primary, she would’ve been toast (unfortunately)

        1. … is that I think, culturally, California overall is different than the United States at large. My worry is that there’s a greater capacity for bigotry in the USA as a whole, and it’s that capacity that can keep it going. California didn’t have it, so the GOP compressed like a red giant star becomes a white dwarf.

          Your points about the Southwest as a whole, however, do bring this into sharper focus. So long as concerns about illegal immigration are mostly fueled by bigotry, the GOP will continue to alienate the fastest growing segment of our population. Just keep Tom Tancredo the spokesman of your movement, guys, and ensure Latinos vote Democratic for another generation.

          1. …during the Mosque debate, polls showed that, while 70% of America was against the Mosque, 70% also believed that they had a ‘Constitutional’ right to build it

            Americans are very ardent in their Constitutional views and are able to check the difference between emotion and ‘law’

            …as we move forward, this will be the GOP’s unraveling – deep in my heart, despite emotion, I really don’t think Americans want to empower a Party that is unConstitutional and/or bigoted

  3. just like it’s biological counterpart doesn’t happen overnight.  All hail Richard M. Nixon and his “southern strategy”, when conservatisim officially climbed into the bed of party-sanctioned racism.

    Someone’s book says something about living by the sword and dying by the sword;  Sword, thy name is “Exclusion”! — the one consistent “conservative” value over the past 40 years.

    1. For about 60 years, then we had that Civil War thing.  Of course, Dems stayed with the party-sanctioned racism for another 90 years or so, so it can take a while to learn a lesson.

      1. that was unfortunately more a nationwide, than a party, phenomenon.

        There was a time post-WW II, when the entire nation was finally turning away from that terrrible ignorance.  The pace of that change accelerated through the 50’s and 60’s with more and more of our country realizing the outrage of the abhorent segregationist behavior.  And, then came King Richard. . .

        (As I kid I had an neighbor who I worked for on his ranch.  The guy was a banker prior to our first great depression, and he absolutely hated Franklin D. Roosevelt — mostly, I think, because of Roosevelt’s bank holidays.  There wasn’t a day that went by when he didn’t tell me at least two diatribe-length times what a criminal Roosevelt was.  I remember thinking to myself how amazing it was for an aged man to harbor such intense political hatred for a person so long gone?

        Maybe dmingo, it’s just that Nixon is my Roosevelt, and I still enjoy blaming him for every single thing I can.)

         

  4. Thoughtful.

    I appreciate your pushback on the conservatives in the Republican Party.  I think it is possible to rejuvenate a party, look at what Howard Dean did with the Democrats, but it takes a sustained push, which I’m not sure is there yet.

    1. And my pleasure!

      That said – I don’t think a “push back” is possible – I hope most of you think of me as an optimist, but on this matter, I am getting very cynical

      My heart was broken the day I saw a Pew Survey poll, about a month ago, that showed Republicans with around a 65% unfavorable rating against Muslims and only 15% in favor of Muslims – this, despite my starting Muslims For Bush

      On that day, I realized… I don’t think there’s any ‘going back’ for the Republicans – favorability towards Muslims, within the GOP, has steadily declined, indicating that moderates are quickly leaving and more ‘right-wingers’ are joining in – the GOP is changing and very fast

      1. Where are they going?  Unaffiliated or another party?

        Eventually, moderates will need to have a party affiliation to run candidates, so where will they go eventually if they start as unaffiliated?

  5. I have always been a fiscal conservative and social liberal, and neither party speaks to me. Ali is dead on when he says that running to the extremes is leaving a lot of us behind. Republicans seem to be doing this faster and harder than Dems but Dems are doing it too.

    Soon those of use in the middle, and I am pretty sure I am not the only one who wants to see gays serve openly in the military, or wants a balanced budget with an equal amount of tax increases and spending decreases. Why is it that prudent management of our finances and ability to be compassionate to all people in this country has become almost impossible. I am pretty sure we can do both without the world coming to an end.

    I want to believe the Dems are closer to this reality, because Ali’s point is correct that the Repubs are running away as fast as they can from this. I am not sure why a third party can’t be created dead in the center. I saw a few hundred thousand people on the Washington Mall last weekend, that I am pretty sure would be the first to sign up for this party.  

    1. is the two party system. If there’s anything that the leaders of both parties can agree upon, it’s that they want only to deal with the other one.

      They usually don’t have to do much work against third parties; they tend to draw in people dissatisfied with one party, not both, so it’s easy to blame losses (Bush in 1992, Gore in 2000, even Taft back in 1912) on third parties, and pointing to the subsequent administrations as proof that letting the other side win was worse. So even if the intent is to “send a message,” that message will not be received.

      It would be interesting to see what a true third party would do, and whether you would see the other two coordinate to keep it down, the way large corporations work against potential game-changing competitors.

      1. Yes the two parties would try to keep this third party from being created. But with Citizens United, we now have a system that could be dominated by business. And does business give a flying… about social policy. No… they care about their financial well being. Which tends to mean, less government regulations, more free market, and less government debt (the stronger the dollar the more their product sells for). Other then government regulations, and business will probably tend to agree that there has to be some regulation, these traits in moderation would be right up the alley for the middle.

        Moderation is not bad… it is a good thing. Change takes time yes, but sometimes it needs a push and that is what government is for. Social Conservatism is dying as is Fiscal Liberalism (though not sure what that exactly is…. but may have something to do with government spending a lot of money with not much to show for it).

        Third parties on the fridges get squashed because the large parties can say they are moving out there to get those people on board and then ignore them, but a true third party in the center would be different and tough to paint as “lunatic fringe”.

        1. ….we remove Campaign Finance Reform

          Campaign Finance Reform has consolidated WAY TOO MUCH money with both the DNC and RNC, which is why the political dialogue has gotten worse every year since that horrible bill’s inception

          With Campaign Finance Reform removed, a third Party could come along, however, it wouldn’t be necessary – without Campaign Finance Reform, we’d likely have two Parties ran by intelligent statesmen/women, not Party bosses looking for a buck

          1. Just very very difficult. It may take a combination of Bloomberg, Gates, and few other ridiculously rich people to self fund for the first couple elections. But grassroots groups happen all the time but they never try to organize on a national level. “Teapartiers” did but they were started with Repub money, and though their members probably don’t know it, they were always Repubs, the “Tea Party” was just a way to energize and get away with saying the ridiculous, racist, and scandalous stuff, that the politically correct couldn’t say themselves but wanted to.

            Saying something is not going to happen because the system is the easiest way to make sure it never happens. Moderates on both sides are disenfranchised, as their parties run away from the middle. Just need someone/group to collect them and organize them.  

            1. In the next two years, people will see what Boehner, Cantor, etc. are about — more of the same failed ideas — and grow disgusted with both the GOP and Dems. The culture will be very similar to the times that gave rise to Ross Perot.

              Result: Michael Bloomberg.

              He’s got the ego, and more importantly, the cash and track record to run for president, but without the Perot nuttiness.

              Bloomberg for prez will leave the wingnuts with the GOP and cut out the heart of Obama’s remaining educated / suburban / business support. Put it in your 2012 line, Pols!  

          2. Several Questions:

            1. Specifically which “reforms” do you mean?

            2. Evidence please: How has CFR consolidated money with the DNC and RNC, compared to before whichever reforms you are referencing and other subsequent developments? I hear constant whining that the role of the parties was reduced.

            3. Again, evidence please, that “political dialogue has gotten worse” because of CFR. What is the cause and effect relationship, and how do you assign blame to CFR vs other factors?

            4. There are many constraints on third parties. (See, for example, Grand Illusion by Nader’s 2004 campaign manager Theresa Amato.) How is current CFR law a more significant factor than all the others?

            And evidence for each please, not just anecdotes.

            5. And you really, really need to explain your basis for this assertion:

            without Campaign Finance Reform, we’d likely have two Parties ran by intelligent statesmen/women, not Party bosses looking for a buck

            It was CFR that made politicians dumb and greedy?

            1. When you consider that the DNC and RNC have chapters in each State and County of America, you can basically give unlimited contributions to both Parties, in exchange for “favors” – not true with individual candidates

              In turn, we set up a system where money gets consolidated with the two major Parties, allowing them to pick and choose their own candidates, with an eye to passing the “favors” they’ve both accumulated

              You want evidence?

              How about Romanoff vs Bennet??

              Or Norton vs Buck?

              Parties shouldn’t “pick” candidates – activists and people should pick them

              The better system?

              Unlimited contributions, across the board, from any national entity, provided that all contributions are fully reported with complete transparency  

              1. You only addressed one of my questions, and are not really on target on that one. By mentioned the whining by parties, I see how you assumed I agreed. I don’t, but it is something I keep hearing from local party leaders.

                The money flowing to parties is indeed great, and they use it to get involved in such things as the Romanoff and Bennet race, as you wrote. But what I asked evidence for was not an example of party involvement, but rather that CFR was the cause. It is the resistance to reforms–and The Supreme Court thinking corporations are persons who can speak–that has created our current situation.

                And, the Norton vs Buck race totally contradicts your claim. Buck won the primary, and was close in the general, because of huge amounts of outside–non-party–money. And almost all of that outside money was anonymous because disclosure reforms were not passed (due to total Republican opposition).

                I agree that “activists and people should pick” candidates. That is, I believe local activists and people should pick candidates. But “unlimited contributions, across the board, from any national entity” as you desire means that outside groups such as Karl Rove’s various organizations pick our candidates, as they did with Buck. CFR did not create that situation. Various CFR efforts are trying to avoid that.

                There are still 4 questions you did not address. But again, I would like to know specifically how CFR caused these things you claim, vs other factors.

              2. You can’t contribute to a cadidate you cannot vote for.

                Why should I, a resident of Colorado, be able to influence a voter in Minnesota in the selection of who is going to represent them in Washington?

                Why should a corportation (or union) who is not a human voter be able to contribute to a campaign when they don’t have a right to vote?  

                1. This year I contributed to numerous campaigns that weren’t related to Colorado including Rep. Wiener (D-NY), Sen Feingold (D-NY), Rep. Grayson (D-FL), and Tarryl Clark in Minn among others. I decided to support these candidates because the votes they take in the U.S. House and Senate have repercussions across the entire country.

                  I do agree in total disclosure however. Do I am in full agreement with you on the second half on your comment regarding corporations and unions.  

                  1. (I maxed out to Al Franken in ’08 and am looking at dropping some cash on Carol Moseley Braun’s mayoral race in Chicago)….but I still think that in the long run, democracy would be better served if only those who can vote can contribute.  Imagine if representatives (or those seeking to be representatives) couldn’t count on big money interests out of their districts to finance their elections….they’d be forced to be more responsive to their constituents.  

    2. Republicans only try to do what they promise during elections in so far as it makes Democrats squirm.  They have NO credibility when it comes to fiscal conservatism.  I have no idea why state and national Democrats don’t point this out endlessly.

      Some of those ‘facts’:

      http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxb…

      Just as they did in 2000, the Republicans are running this year on an economic platform of tax cuts, especially making the tax cuts permanent for the richest among us. So how did the tax cuts work out? My analysis of the new data, with all figures in 2008 dollars:

      Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels.

      $2.7 Trillion.  Can you imagine that?

      And the Republicans are trying to force the Democrats into implementing the same dasterdly tax cuts for another decade of losing $3 Trillion more dollars.  That should pretty well do in the entire middle class.  Which, of course is the end game for the Republicans!

      This is what the tax cuts can do:

      http://www.fivethirtyeight.com…

      A Brief History of the Deficit

      According to the Bureau of Public Debt, the US has been running a structural deficit for the last ten years, not just the last year. Here is a chart of the total amount of federal debt outstanding at the end of each federal fiscal year for the last ten years:

      09/30/2009 $ 11,909,829,003,511.75

      09/30/2008 $ 10,024,724,896,912.49

      09/30/2007 $ 9,007,653,372,262.48

      09/30/2006 $ 8,506,973,899,215.23

      09/30/2005 $ 7,932,709,661,723.50

      09/30/2004 $ 7,379,052,696,330.32

      09/30/2003 $ 6,783,231,062,743.62

      09/30/2002 $ 6,228,235,965,597.16

      09/30/2001 $ 5,807,463,412,200.06

      09/30/2000 $ 5,674,178,209,886.86

      From less than 6 Trillion to almost 12 Trillion is just 9 years.  How much worse could it get?  That is the Bush Record.

      And just a little bit on the way that Republicans put party above country:

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm…

      Therefore, anything that the Republicans can do to make the economy worse between now and then will help their election prospects.

      While it may be bad taste to accuse a major national political party of deliberately wanting to throw people out of jobs, there is no other plausible explanation for the Republicans’ behaviour. They have balked at supporting nearly every bill that had any serious hope of creating or keeping jobs, most recently filibustering on bills that provided aid to state and local governments and extending unemployment benefits. The result of the Republicans’ actions, unless they are reversed quickly, is that hundreds of thousands more workers will be thrown out of work by the mid-terms.

      Need more evidence that Dems are the fiscal conservatives?  There is more evidence to be had.

      Jobs from Jan 2008 to Oct 2010:

      http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog…

      The Obama Administration has created more jobs than the entire Bush 8 years.

      Austin Goolsby and the tax cuts visually:

      http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog…

      Just a few of the thousands of ARRA projects that the Republicans scorn but then take credit for when they are in their districts:

      http://www.whitehouse.gov/site…

      The hypocrisy of the GOP (this is the same story in nearly every district):

      http://thinkprogress.org/2010/…

      Not convinced yet?  Try this… private sector job creation from 1945 (last 11 Presidents) Being a twitter copy, you need to read from bottom to top.

      Twitter.com/westwingreport

      October 18, 2010

      1. Payroll expansion, continued: Bush I: 2.3%, Bush II: 2.3%, Ford: 2.3%. Source: Bureau of Labor Stats (published 2009 in Wall St. Journal) 6 minutes ago via web

      2. Payroll expansion: Clinton 21.1%, LBJ: 20.8%, Truman: 20.1%, Reagan: 17.6%, Nixon: 13.6%, Carter: 13.1%, Eisenhower: 7.0%, JFK: 6.7% 8 minutes ago via web

      3. Labor Dept. stats going back to 1945 show payroll expansion highest under 1) Clinton 2) LBJ, 3) Truman. Worst: 1) Ford. 2 & 3 both Bushes 9 minutes ago via web

      4. From Truman in 1945 through the present, in terms of percentage of payroll expansion, some Presidents have done much better than others 12 minutes ago via web

      5. WWR is doing some research on private sector job creation during last 11 presidential administrations – fascinating results.

      Ali,

      Your mind has opened a little, now just look at the facts.

      1. Neither Party takes pride in Fiscal Conservatism!

        Republicans have become pro-security – kicking out illegals and going after terrorists, even if it means abridging the Constitution and increasing spending

        Democrats? They’re not perfect, but their activists truly stand for equal rights and opportunities – I dig that!

        Neither gives a damn about fiscal conservatism, but of the two choices above…. I think I know where my heart is leaning….

              1. Thank you for sharing – taking longer than I thought to study it

                Regardless – this I am starting realize –

                I think Liberal Democrats would be more accepting of my Pro-TABOR views than Conservative Republicans would be of my Pro-Gay and Pro-Immigrant ones….

                  1. The Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights is the core of creating an efficient and limited government

                    When revenues are restrained, government will spend its money more carefully and thoughtfully

                    More so – when asking the public for more funds, politicians are likely to be much more creative and thoughtful about ideas, knowing that the public has to be convinced

                    Overall, TABOR keeps taxes low, keeps spending low, keeps our politicians intelligent and thoughtful, and springs forth better ideas because every idea has to be sold, not just championed  

                    1. prevents fiscal conservatism.

                      TABOR prevents any investment in opportunity. Because of the restrictions on spending govt is forced to spend only on what they have spent on previously, and the bare minimum at best. Look at CDOT’s funding and prepare for a CDOT budget that will be lower than what is required for maintenance.

                      How is CO to invest in something like broadband? We would have to forego spending in some agency already being funded and ALL of them are underfunded.

                      How is CO to invest in providing staff for leg so they might write better legislation without depriving some underfunded agency?

                      Investment is conservative.

                      Ali, what you are offering is theory. And, it is theory that has been shown to be incorrect insofar as TABOR’s ability to allow govt to function to adequately serve the needs of citizens.  

                    2. The only good thing about Tabor is letting the voters decide whether or not to approve a tax.  If that’s all Tabor ever did, it would be fantastic.

                      The DougyBrucyBeejedup mathematical formulas for caps on revenue and spending — utter byzantine hell.  That, plus little Dougy’s penchant for suing any locality that did ever agree to approve a tax on itself, completely invalidate any benefit that this monstrosity could have provided to the State.  

                    3. It is now bankrupting the state park system. TABOR does not allow for an intelligent discussion of taxes. Denver is growing and without a tax increase, the infrastructure will not be able to handle all the new people, like me.

                      CO is following in the footsteps of CA. That is a bad thing.

                    4. Irish, that is a very untruthful statement

                      First off, TABOR and Prop 13 are extremely different – Prop 13 requires a 2/3 vote in the Legislature to increase taxes, whereas TABOR requires a public vote – two VERY different things

                      Second, due to Prop 13, to my best understanding, the California Legislature often fails in balancing the budget, which indirectly leads to excessive borrowing and unpaid bills, one of the main components that is hurting California right now

                      Colorado has enjoyed low taxes and low spending, mainly due to TABOR, and the fiscal situation in Colorado is much healthier than most States – I’m not just an ideologue on this – TABOR does create a more thoughtful debate

                      Lastly, I will always sign a petition to put a spending request on the ballot – I am NEVER afraid to take anything to the electorate – if they decide more spending is needed, then I accept their judgement – I would never block someone from making that request

                      And lastly 2, have more faith in the electorate, as they have proven to be thoughtful – Colorado’s electorate had passed TABOR, but they also voted for Ref C and voted against the Big Bad 3 – while I’m to the right of the electorate on fiscal issues, I don’t think you give the public enough credit for taking thoughtful and moderate stances towards these issues  

                    5. has put a stranglehold on the budget process. Since 1992, when TABOR was passed, how many tax hikes have you voted for?

                    6. In California, when I voted here in the early 2000s, I believe I voted on some tax increases for environmental protection, but I think I’ve voted “no” on most everything else  

                    7. Grover Norquist’s fantasy of shrinking government so you can drown it in a bathtub. The CO government is horribly underfunded and the people that suffer are the one’s who can afford it least. By destroying education in this state, you’ll end up with a horribly uneducated populace who will be unable to compete in a global market.  

                    8. You’re walking a dangerous path to assume that money will solve most education problems, Irish

                      I spent 1 1/2 years tyro-teaching in East LA – we don’t need more money – what we need is a change in pedagogy

                      Our public schools today still teach to IQ, when they ought to be teaching to Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences

                      From there – we gotta employ more Cooperative Learning (Spencer Kagan) and Project Based Learning (John Dewey)

                      Yes, this change will need some money, but much more political will than money

                      Money doesn’t solve everything – and the best thing to do with it? Leave it in the hands of people and let them use it for their desires  

                    9. Did rats and roaches in the building make for a better learning experience?What about the lack of science equipment, is that leveling the playing field for the poor kids?

                    10. …and you have nothing to back your statements

                      If your points were worthy, I expect you can write them without insult and sarcasm… yes?

                      I won’t be conversing with you any further – I’m a gentleman and I adore a good discussion, but I’m not going to spend time bartering with sarcasm

                    11. in education doesn’t work. My sister teaches in one of the poorest schools. She deals with the mental illness, and mental retardation from lead, poor nutrition and invitro drug and alcohol abuse.

                      When I worked as a camp nurse, I had kids from New Haven and Bridgeport. The teachers complained about lack of books, lack of science equipment, lack of play areas and grass. A lot of those kids where on mental health meds.  

      2. This is an interesting site, you can put in the state you are interested in and get information on the ‘Letters’ sent to government departments requesting funds from ARRA for their pet projects.

        Many of the projects are worthwhile but if you rail against the program, you should not take the money behind the voters backs and then attend the ceremonies and brag that you brought money to your district… at the same time that you are airing ads that claim that the ARRA NEVER creats jobs, not now and not in the future.

        That is what you should not do.

        http://www.publicintegrity.org…

  6. “A majority of them disapprove of President Obama’s handling of healthcare”

    I have seen this in multiple venues to mean a majority support GOP angle on HCR. This conclusion does not follow. Many Progressives are disappointed with what HCR finally passed. But not a one of us thinks the GOP has a clue on how to solve the problem. We are pretty unified on the general inability for the GOP to solve our problems in a future-looking, long-term way.

          1. Socialized Medicine – The Dept of Veterans Affairs.

            Single Payer- TriCare.

            Socialized Healthcare – Repub talking point rolled out to allow dumbass teabaggers to easily remember it.

            Curiously, those first two options have higher customer satisfaction than ANY commercial health care system.  The government can and does health care right, Msr Hasan.

            1. But there is no public option. So, no government-run health care.

              Obamacare was essentially the 80s/90s Heritage Foundation’s idea of what health care reform should be. The opposition to it, and the non-stop attacking of it, was purely a political strategy, and had nothing to do with what’s actually in HCR.

            1. ObamaCare is a boon (not in a good way) for private HMOs

              But the fact that it criminalizes against those who do not enroll for healthcare, brings in a “socialized” element, in added layers of heavy regulations and enforcements against the people

              Regarding healthcare overall – the advent of the Electronic Healthcare Record is going to drastically reduce healthcare costs – revoke ObamaCare and expand Medicaid to cover the 10 to 14 million who cannot qualify for Medicaid, using funds saved by instituting the Electronic Healthcare Record

              Lastly – there is NOT 30 million who are uninsured, as millions are simply between jobs, at all times – truly, we are debating 10 to 14 million who do not live in poverty, but truly may not be able to easily pay for healthcare coverage  

              1. But I don’t think you and I are ever going to come a to a consensus on this issue. not when we both define the terms involved in such different ways.

                I maintain that the polling you showed is based on two groups of young people–conservatives and independents who didn’t like the mandated coverage (a Republican idea originally) and liberals (the majority of those 18-29 YOs) who hated that it was essentially a giveaway of their money to the insurance companies. This was mandated privatization, not socialized anything.

              2. It imposes a very small tax penalty (compared to the cost of buying health insurance) and that tax penalty is not even enforceable with all of the remedies associated with normal non-payment of taxes.  The only tools that can be used by the IRS to collect that penalty are those available to any money judgment creditor for a civil debt.  Those penalties aren’t, for example, part of tax liens.

                The health care reform bill is 95% carrot and 5% foam padded stick.

                Indeed, the health care reform bill actually makes health care less government controlled by providing health care via health insurance policies and private health care providers for millions of people who previously would have had to rely on Medicaid or government owned and operated public hosptials and clinics, or unfunded emergency room treatment mandates.

  7. we’re witnessing the birth of a third party. The Blue Dogs of the Democratic Party aren’t thrilled about being Dems. Just look at how, after being decimated in the House, they believed they could actually bully Pelosi into not running for Minority Leader. Moderates are barely tolerated in the TeaPublican Party.

    How long until both subsets break off to form their own third party? You’d essentially be left with:

    Conservative Party

    Moderate Party

    Progressive Party

    As well as lots of other minority parties like the Greens and ACP floating around. It would be very interesting to see this. We would have a healthy 3 or more party system and the individuals would then caucus with whomever their constituents would best be represented by.

    1. And it can happen.  Did in fact, in the late 80’s, across our pond.

      They now share leadership.

      I would actually love to see the Lib Dems in reverse.  Leave the GOP/Tea Party to themselves, kick the RINO’s and the DINO’s to the Con Dems(?) and the Dems can go back to not apologizing for their positions.

      For the record, there are more than ten parties currently represented in the House of Commons.  It works out OK.  (Until Gordon Brown shits on it… I dislike him so much!)

      2. Their parliamentary system is conducive to multiple parties, our legislative system less so, especially with winner take all voting. Ranked choice voting would help third parties. But there are many, many laws, in every state, that create difficulties for third parties–because that is the way both the Ds and Rs want it.

  8. and push the Rs to minority party status, I’m glad that did not occur. Call it a “loyal opposition” if you will, but, as comments re 3rd parties above speak to, having the Rs enjoy some level of success, infrequently, helps prevent Ds from nominating folks like Maes or Tanc.

    There IS room in the Ds for conservatives. I am a fiscal conservative both with my own $ and those of the public. But, we have got to get rid of TABOR. CO’s experience with TABOR has really been pretty disastrous.

    So, Ali, I would welcome you to the Ds. But, I’d be asking you, beyond ambiguous political theory, to help us to modify or rid ourselves of TABOR.  

    1. gave money to the Ugly 3 or one of them at least.  While I agree with him on the abomination that is SB 1070 and support the Mosque being built as planned, I have some real differences with many of Ali’s political actions.

        1. I will say – before being a Republican, I am and always have been first –

          A Constitutionalist

          A Capitalist

          An American

          and

          A Fiscal Conservative

          I love the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights and think every State, County, and Municipality should have it

          That said – if a County, Municipality, or State votes to remove TABOR, then I would honor that – I will continue to campaign on TABOR as being a great solution against high taxes and spending, but if the voters don’t vote it in (or remove it from existing laws) then I’ll always accept that

  9. That this was a pretty big year for Latino Republicans.  Gov-Elect Martinez (NM), Gov-Elect Sandoval (NV), and Sen-Elect Rubio (FL)  all won.

    How many Hispanic Democrats were elected to open Governor or US Senate seats?

    And as far as the gay vote goes:

    “According to a CNN exit poll, more self-identified lesbians, gay men and bisexuals voted for Republicans in the midterm election than ever before. Over one third of self-identified gay voters pulled the lever for Republicans on Tuesday, a 4 percentage point increase from the same demographic in 2008.”

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/atlant…

    1. As I said above – Susanna Martinez is in favor a guest worker program that leads to citizenship and is against 1070

      Had those points come out before the primary, she would be toast

      Sandoval ran against Harry Reid’s son – come on…

      Marco Rubio? He supports 1070 – a Tea Party dream right now is a minority who actually wants to go after other minorities…. we have a phrase for that… ‘Uncle Tom’… congrats to Rubio for winning, but I severely doubt that he will serve as a gateway for more Latino voters to go GOP

      Good point on gays – I would chalk that one up more to frustration against Democrats, but nonetheless, it is a great point

      Yes, there could be holes in my argument, but the Denver Pravda is reporting that Latino voters cost Angle, Tancredo, and Buck their potential victories – it will remain to be seen, but I think Latino voters will cost Republicans more elections in the future, than help them

      1. the incumbent Governor in a GOP primary, and had been elected statewide before. He’s no slouch.

        And you should be ashamed for using the phrase “Uncle Tom”, unless you really believe that people of a certain skin color should ALL think alike.

        1. Yes – I should give more credit to Sandoval – he is a solid candidate – I think he was greatly helped by circumstance too though

          I’m not ashamed for using the term “Uncle Tom” – a minority, of a brown complexion, who campaigns for racial profiling???

          Give me a break…  

                    1. I can get a good look at a T-bone 16 pages of legislation by sticking my head up a bull’s ass staring at a computer screen all day and giving myself a migrane, but I’d rather take a butcher’s lawyerw’s word for it.

                      Well, at least until I get the government to pay for my lasik.  

                    1. What do you want me to tell you?  It says in the bill that you, as a law enforcement officer, may not use race as a sole reason for contact.

                      You can say that the bill might lead to profiling if you choose, but that’s an opinion.  Not what the bill itself says.

                    2. I was responding to Aristotle on a general theme.

                      I don’t have any position at all on the particular bill under discussion since I haven’t read a single word of it. If I do ever read it, which is doubtful, I’ll probably be like you and believe my own eyes over any opinion from some lowlife who calls him/herself a Constitutional lawyer.

                      (In reality, whenever I read legal language, my eyes roll up into the back of my head and my tongue hangs out and my hands quiver. I am so relieved if a lawyer offers to explain it to me without insisting that I read it that I gratefully accept any interpretation proffered (especially if it sounds like it is favorable to my ideological leanings), as long as I don’t actually have to read the damn thing. I’m human, too.)

                    4. What do you think the chances that that will be a reason in every case? I think high – Arizona isn’t drowning in Canadians after all. Or Chinese, Irish, or Poles for that matter.

                      I should read the bill for myself, but I know ass cover when I see it, and if that phrasing is straight out of it then ass cover it is.

                  1. We just disagree, that’s all.  And the law as written makes it illegal to contact someone based on their race.  In black and white.

                    And what I said was that it depends on the Lawyer.  Just because one is a Constitutional Lawyer doesn’t automatically mean you’re right.

                    2. …and she lost!  I wouldn’t have voted for her.  Same with Angle.  As much as I hate Reid’s guts, I simply wouldn’t have voted.  Angle’s a dumbshit and shouldn’t have been in the Senate.  The Tea Party’s influence is a work in progress, and for all the carping about huge mobs of racist, bigoted white people, that simply wasn’t the truth.

                      I look at the results as the Republican system working.  Sure, some far-right jerks got elected, but look at Buck.  This was not a social-issues or as you love to say, a “bigoted” election.  

                      People are pissed about money, first and foremost.  Being “TABOR4LIFE” (by the way, unless you lose that sig line, the libs aren’t going to teach you the secret handshake, no matter how much ‘my party left me’ red meat you throw to them the week of an ass-kicking for the ages) you should understand that a majority of Americans were energized to the point that they yanked nearly every possible bit of power away from the far-left’s money spending wing.

                      P.J. O’Rourke had a great line – that this election was a “restraining order” on the Dems and their spending.

                    3. Judging by the way Doug Bruce is treated, Republicans could give a damn about being TABOR4LIFE

                      I’m not worried about liberal reaction – I gotta stay true to my principles, even if it invalidates me forever….

                    4. How can you possibly say that this last election DRUBBING had more to do with bigotry, racism and homophobia than fiscal concerns?

                    5. And that’s not the point of this article, anyways – we already covered that in a different thread, where my sister answered your concern

                      I’m a gentleman – JJ Ament isn’t around to defend himself – I’m not gonna be coerced into a revision of history, in which, he doesn’t get a chance to defend his side

                    6. I wasn’t talking about your mom, or Ament, or anything like that.

                      I think the gist of your diary (very well written, BTW) was that you feel like the R’s kicked huge ass nationally by playing on people’s fears of Muslims, Gays, and illegal immigrants.  And that this, demographically, is the last election where they will be able to do so.

                      I disagree, and am appealing to your fiscal beliefs to take an honest, non-hyped look at it, and see if you can’t understand that the middle (where elections are won) is terrified of the “progressives” and their grasp on finances.

                      Does that make more sense?

                    7. And yes – people are definitely terrified by fiscal liberalism

                      But again, as pointed out above, California Republicans are growing even more unpopular with the new generation of Latino voters, despite 187 happening years ago

                      My main argument – if a demographic feels ‘threatened’ by one Party’s empowerment, they will never ever vote for that Party – simple as that

                      I think Republicans have lost Muslims, Gays, Latinos, and their sympathizers forever – and this will lead to extinction

                      Progressives, ultimately, offer equal rights to everyone (at least they say it) – a minority will always vote for a fiscal liberal who guarantees their rights over a tax-cutter who seeks to abolish their liberties

                    8. I can kind of agree with that, but if we have actual immigration reform, doesn’t that fix a lot of things?

                      Why single out R’s as being biased against Muslims?  52% of NYC respondents don’t want the mosque built in its current location.

                      Are there actually Republicans that live in NYC?

                    9. Dems were dissatisfied because Obama has not done enough, in their minds.

                      The Dems are way too weak and let the GOP walk all over them, and frame the debate (like they always do).

                      The economy has not gotten better, though it would be a billion times worse if the measures taken in the last couple years hadn’t been taken.

                      It is the first election for a newly sitting President, the party in power always loses.

                      There was over 4 billion dollars spent during this cycle, guess where most of that came from.

                      And because the Republicans got the bigot, homophobe, racist vote out.

                      All of these led to the “Drubbing”

                    10. As pols trumpeted often, the turnout numbers weren’t much different than previous midterm elections.  

                      Independents ran screaming in fear away from the Dems because of things like the “stimulus” and ObamacareВ®.

                    11. that the Dems didn’t work hard enough to disprove “Death Panels” and other such falacies because they were disheartened by who they thought was too moderate.

                      Case in point is your “registered” trademarked emblem of the right “Obamacare”,

                      which had many ideas from previous/current Republicans, but when they noticed that the bill was unpopular those same Repubs ran away from the bill. And since Dems didn’t get much from it they didn’t praise the good stuff that was in the bill. Is it perfect? NO…no bill coming out of Congress probably ever will be but I think it was a step.  

                    12. But it’s totally disingenuous.  It can be fairly effectively argued that the bill is designed to force private insurers out of business, and the way it was presented (as deficit neutral) was a flat out lie.  

                      There are some good parts to it, but it takes ten years of taxes to pay for six years of service, and people aren’t stupid.

                      When you have to bribe Senators in the middle of the night, voters notice that.

                      15 of the 20 pro-life Congressional Dems that crossed and voted for it (because of an EO that is meaningless) just joined the ranks of the unemployed on Tuesday.

                    13. …because he is an asshole.

                      If he were thoughtful and eloquent, and even the slightest bit courteous, he would be treated differently. But he has no redeeming social grace.  None.  

                      MAH, if Doug Bruce were one of your servants, your mom would have him put in chains and sent back to Guatemala for insubordination!  

                    14. Chained up and sent back to Guatemala?? What the hell is that supposed to mean?

                      It’s no wonder you hold up Martinez, Sandoval, and Rubio as “tokens” to assuage your bigotry

                      And I have worked with many GOP candidates and Legislators in Colorado – few are as honest, intelligent, and as forthright as Doug Bruce

                      And lastly, picking on my mother as a servant owner??? Between the Colorado Music Fest, the Hasan Pavilion at the Sangre De Cristo Art Center, and the Hasan School of Business, I am deeply proud of everything my parents have given away to the State they love most – criticize me all you want, but how dare you implicate my mother of such hatred

                      Hiking, please leave your racist garbage at home  

                    15. It says,

                      A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION.

                      (Emphasis added.)  The U.S. Supreme Court said that the U.S. Constitution permits a border patrol officer to stop a car based upon reasonable suspicion that its occupants are illegal aliens.  U.S. v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 884 (1975).  The factors that give rise to reasonable suspicion may include the officer’s knowledge of patterns of traffic on the specific road, information about illegal border crossings in the area, and other factors that are unrelated to the appearance and national origin of the car’s occupants.  They can also include things such as the type of automobile, since some are more often used for smuggling people across the border.  The Court went on to say,

                      The Government also points out that trained officers can recognize the characteristic appearance of persons who live in Mexico, relying on such factors as the mode of dress and haircut. Reply Brief for United States 12-13, in United States v. Ortiz, post, p. 891. In all situations the officer is entitled to assess the facts in light of his experience in detecting illegal entry and smuggling. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S., at 27.

                      So, according to the United States Supreme Court, an officer can have reasonable suspicion to stop a car and question its occupants solely because they have the “characteristic appearance” of Mexican residents.  Since that is “permitted by the United States … Constitution,” then it is allowable under the Arizona statute.

                      And I got my law degree 24 years ago, after I got my master’s in political science with an emphasis in constitutional law, so I know what I’m talking about.

                    16. I think you know what you’re talking about most of the time, actually.

                      I think with the law in AZ what’s overlooked is the skill of the police.  Do you have doubts that the cops are able to tell who might be illegal based on other factors than purely race?

                      I don’t see a whole lot of danger of U.S. citizens who might be latino being deported with this law, but I do see it being a deterrent for folks who might choose to illegally live in AZ, which was the point of the law.

                      DO you think it’s possible that we’ll have common-sense immigration reform soon?

                      We’ve had numerous discussions here on Pols that could have seemingly solved it – if this bunch of freaks can come to an agreement, why can’t the Feds?

                    17. (a) Most of the time, I’m full of shit.

                      (b) I wish I agreed that skill and good will are always the hallmarks of police work.  I do agree that 90% of police officers do their jobs with skill and good will 95% of the time.  However, even the best cops have bad days, and not all cops are that good.  When you have a law like 1070 that provides penalties against the police if they don’t stop enough illegal immigrants, I worry that the incentive to stop people based primarily (if not solely) on racial profiling becomes too great.

                      (c) It’s not just a deterrent to people who are here illegally.  My son’s girlfriend and her dad took a road trip through AZ looking at colleges.  She is native born but ethnic, and was worried about getting stopped.  There are lots of people who are scared of the law and afraid to go to AZ because of it.  They won’t have any trouble proving that they’re legal, but they don’t want the hassle and are afraid that the cops will find something to bust them on.

                      (d) I suspect that if any of us were running for office, our sweet accord would vanish in a flash!  Those of us who come to CoPols to waste our dwindling years on fervent meaningless debate don’t have to answer to an electorate, which makes it much easier for us to find creative solutions!

      2. You really think Tancredo lost because of Hispanic voters?  That has got to be the single worst election alalysis I’ve ever heard.  It’s no wonder that Pravda publishers chose the same word as the Soviet government did to call its state-run newspaper, “truth.”

        So why should I believe them about Angle & Buck when they were so wrong about Tanc?  

        I would bet Angle lost a majority of white voters too, as did Buck.

    2. LGBT people are fed up with the Dems not delivering their promises. You can look up Arvadonian’s diary about why he wasn’t voting for Perlmutter or Bennet to get the story there. I’ve seen many other opinions from gays and lesbians echoing these stories, so don’t go thinking that the Log Cabin Republicans’ membership is swelling.

      It will be interesting to see if those newly elected Hispanic Republicans side against their party’s traditional stances regarding equal opportunity, immigration, official English and the like.

      1. …which is why she will not go further than Governor of New Mexico

        I am proud that I contributed to Martinez, but the idea that she can win a Republican Presidential primary without supporting 1070? Not gonna happen….

        I don’t know much about Sandoval, other than…. it was a fluke…. no one thought Gibbons would lose the primary (so Sandoval jumped in) and he was LUCKY to get Rory Reid in the General – God loves Sandoval – that’s all there is to it

        Rubio is already a 1070 lover – again, he won’t grow the Party at all with Latinos

  10. Republican Party by a new party called the Tea Party.

    The GOP is surely trying to alienate chunks of the electorate that are growing.  In time, I suspect that it will evolve.

    The Christian Democratic parties of Europe, which are the rough counterparts of the Republican party in the U.S., are as anti-immigrant, as anti-Muslim, and as anti-gay rights as their American counterparts, yet seem to manage.  But, they aren’t nearly so opposed to the welfare state.

    But, despite the European paranoia over immigration (and similar attitudes in Japan for that matter), none of those countries have either the number of immigrants nor the immigrant tradition of the United States.

    The demographic paradox is that growing states in the Southeast and Southwest seem to be trending Republican, while the growing demographic segments seem to be trending Democratic.

    The Rust Belt’s embrace of the GOP this election cycle, which continues to decline in political importance, however, is odd.  Apparently saving two of the three American automakers from liquidating didn’t count for much in this region where manufacturing jobs still exist.  (The Rust Belt is also one of the hubs of American Muslim population growth.)

    Both parties have come out after this election cycle less moderate than they were before it.  Half of the Blue Dogs in the House and many Senate moderates on both sides of the aisle are gone.  The Republican freshman class is very conservative.  The political middle was largely ceded by both sides this cycle and is pretty much up for grabs.

  11. A word of advice:  be succinct if you’re trying to make a point.  Your post is photo in the dictionary next to “verbal diarrhea.”  People stop being impressed by simply how many words you can fit into a book report right around middle school.  Sorry – but just as your bitterness at getting about 30% fewer votes than Maes at the GOP assembly shows through everything you write, my bitterness at having to slog through your post is showing through mine.  But you get the last laugh as now I feel compelled to address this mess!

    Ironically, you still missed the big picture.  Though effects of the Tea Party movement will be felt in the GOP for some time, there is no evidence to suggest that they are going to take the party over or lead to its (or America’s) demise.

    Though you’re young, you must have heard about the Christian Coalition that helped to sweep Reagan into office.  They were a major force in the GOP for years but have since declined to a vocal minority within the party today.  Somehow the GOP (and America) survived.  There are plenty of cases where various factions of both parties have had major influence in their presidential politics.  Good and bad.  The Tea Party is not going to destroy anything.  

    As to the specific issues you cite for the Republic’s demise:

    * Immigration.  This may be where you have your strongest argument.  But the Republican Party’s (and more) problem is not its ends so much as its means.  We do need better physical security on our borders.  We do need to end the demand that is driving illegal immigrants here.  But there are more compassionate ways to do it (I was with Bush on this front).  And to your point, Hispanic numbers are growing rapidly.

    * 14th Amendment.  WTF?  Are you talking about the ‘anchor baby’ debate?  If so, see above.

    *  Prop 8.  Please note that there aren’t enough Republicans in CA to make this happen on their own.  And of all the days you could call the Republican Party homophobic, Politico’s front page has a story about GOP gains among gay voters.  In addition to high profile work by Ken Mehlman and Ted Olsen this year, Republicans are making great strides in this community.  I realize we have a ways to go, but we are moving in the right direction!  You’re argument that Republican positions on gays will lead to the ruin of the party (and America) is detached from reality.

    *  The Mosque in NYC.  I will be bold enough to say that this has a lot more to do with you than long term macro politics.  Both parties are susceptible to brief but heated bouts of fervor (e.g. T. Schiavo or anything Sharpton organizes).  It’s usually partisan politics more than principal.  And the general public knows it.

    Finally, I’m not even sure what your argument about younger voters is.  You warn of the dangers of offending them then admit that younger demographics are typically more liberal.  Then – you point out that, whereas they are typically both socially and fiscally liberal, they are now becoming more fiscally conservative.  Sounds like they’re moving toward the GOP, now away.

    You sound an awful lot like a victim Ali.  You shouldn’t.

    2. There 20th Maine – you are wrong

      When I lost the GOP Convention and failed to make the ballot, I made two promises –

      1. That I would support the eventual Treasurer nominee and give the max contribution

      2. That I would help the GOP win back the State House & Senate

      Take a trip to Colorado’s Secretary of State TRACER, where you will see that I about contributed to almost every rookie GOPer running for House or Senate – if you talk to them personally, you’ll also know that I sent info to many of them, detailing how to run a campaign, based on my HD56 experience

      I also endorsed Walker Stapleton (well before JJ Ament) and gave him the max contribution

      My contributions also went to Scott Gessler

      How is that bitter?

      I made a promise to help the Party and I followed through

      With that said – I ADORE America – without America and our Constitution, there is no Islam… there is no religion… there is no Gay… there is no Latino… there is no point to it all, because no country grants equal rights and opportunities better than we do

      So as a minority, with a Muslim background and a Spanish heritage, who is a MAJOR beneficiary of American opportunity – wouldn’t it make sense that I campaign against the elements that are out to destroy what makes this country wonderful?

      You’re the victim, 20th Maine – a victim to a pen that is “mightier than the sword”

    3. I read every word of this post because it was interesting, well written, and to the point. Not a word in excess of what needed to be said.

      That said, you make some good points, but I will reiterate what I said elsewhere about gays. If you’ve read any of the leading LGBT blogs in the weeks and months leading up to the election, or Arvadonian’s diary about why he wasn’t voting for Bennet, you’ll know there was significant backlash against the Democrats (most particularly the president) for failing to do one single, significant thing for that group since the last election. This uptick will not be visible in the next election, because I fully expect the GOP will push their anti-gay rights agenda and scare those protest voters straight (and I don’t mean their orientation).

      The GOP will start making strides in the LGBT community when it jettisons the bigots and accepts gays as the equals of straights, with the same right to serve in the military as straights, the same right to marry the partners they love like straights, and the same protection from discrimination that other minorities suffer. Check your party platform to see what it says about any of these issues sometime and explain why the majority of LGBT people would permanently join the party with those positions.

      1. The GOP will start making strides in the LGBT community when it jettisons the bigots and accepts gays as the equals of straights, with the same right to serve in the military as straights, the same right to marry the partners they love like straights, and the same protection from discrimination that other minorities suffer.

        And that’s coming from a proud pro-gay-marriage Republican.

        1. But that’s not happening… yet. It might start to since the Tea Party basically cost the GOP the Senate, but I’m still waiting for that moment when the GOP comes into the 21st century on that. At least the Democrats are talking about it, the anti-gay marriage, anti-repeal of DADT Republicans aren’t even on the same planet as the rest of us.

    4. What a bunch of bull. The Rep. candidate for Senate (and don’t forget the true Repub candidate for Gov, using the ACP as a way to get on the ballot), were both in some ways bigoted, a homophobic, and a little racist but you are still saying that the movement to the right toward more reactionary homophobic racism, is a good thing for the Repub party. I wish the Republican party luck with that move.

      You show your true colors by ripping on MAH for being a “sore loser” instead of a person who is conflicted and seeing the light with the party that he supported.

      1. I can’t be a GOP Apologist forever

        I do write this with hopes of putting a mirror up to the Republican Party – but at some point, I’ll have to move on to more proactive ways of helping gays and immigrants – that will come soon….

          1. Ronald Reagan supported Amnesty – and around 20 years after granting it, American GNP had about tripled, unemployment rates were cut by around half, and per capita income had almost doubled

            The plan?

            1. Take the current illegal immigrants and give them green cards, provided that they pay a fine for breaking the current laws and pay backtaxes

            2. Institute a competent guest worker program, both for those who want to stay here temporarily and those who want to become citizens – that ends the flood of those coming over illegally – a program that turns no one away, provided that they can get here

            America is NOT too big for immigrants – our growth rate is ‘barely’ in the positive, and that’s WITH illegal immigrants – we need more people

            1. I could get behind all of that.  But I also think the border needs to be secured from the non-awesome workers (that is not snark) i.e. smugglers, gang members, and potential terrorists.

              But other than that, I’m with you.

              Here’s the crux – do the current illegal immigrants get voting rights with their green cards?

              What is the path, then, to full citizenship for those who want it?

              1. I’ll dig around for it, but I saw a story on BBC news showing that they found a friggin’ RAIROAD TUNNEL under the border somewhere. It was for drug smuggling, natch, as people smuggling isn’t lucrative enough for that.

                1. But there is zero reason or justification for the Park Service to close parts of the U.S. because of the danger posed by Mexican gangs.  We can do much more.

                  I’m not talking about the families coming here to work, I’m talking about jackass murderers posing a danger on the border.

                  1. Personally, I think overhauling our drug policy and recognizing that people like to get high would do a million times more to ensure that than any security force. But my point is that an expensive fence will do zilch because the incentives to go around or under or over are too high. The Great Wall in China ought to be a reminder of the futility of such a solution.

              2. People with green cards can’t vote.  Of course people who are here illegally wouldn’t get voting rights with their green cards.  You know that; why did you ask?

                1. Because I don’t think labor just wants to give the folks receiving amnesty green cards.  I think the 12-? million illegals that are here are looked at as a voting block, to be honest.

                  1. But what’s your factual basis for thinking that?  If they become citizens, then they would be a voting bloc, but is there anything wrong with that?  When Reagan gave amnesty to illegal immigrants these many years ago, don’t you suppose he had an idea that they might become a voting bloc one day?

                    1. If we created an environment for them to come work here safely, have guaranteed wages, and travel back and forth as much as they wanted, I wonder how many would want to become U.S. citizens anyway?

                      To me it’s like some of the more ridiculous mortgage relief programs – why reward people that have broken the law and punish the ones who didn’t?

              1. I tried to go to that website and see what exactly the policy was, and I could not for the life of me find a clear, concise description of what it would actually entail.

                Could you summarize it for me? I’m interested, but I’m not going to spend the rest of the afternoon trying to find it.

                1. They’re obviously not website gurus!  But here’s the gist of it as I understand it:

                  Job centers would be placed on the Mexican side of the border.  American employers, after a certain length of time posting to Americans, would post these jobs in the job centers to be filled by Mexicans.

                  Mexicans would go to the job centers and choose jobs posted there.  They would go through a background check, given a biometric ID card, and a timeline to report to the jobsite.  

                  I’m not clear on if they have to go back everytime they want a new job or if they can transfer directly to a new job.

                  Benefits, real and political, are:

                  * Americans are given first shot at these jobs.

                  * Illegals in the US currently would be incentivized to leave and come back through the job centers.

                  * These workers are then on the grid and in the system.  They are paying taxes, etc.

                  It won’t entirely solve the problem but it will get a large percentage to leave and come through legally.  

                  1. I’m not certain I agree, but it’s at least a policy prescription, which is more than I usually see form the Republicans on illegal immigration, and the negative effect deporting millions of illegal immigrants would have on our economy.

      2. I can’t tell if your attacking me and/or Republicans or merely trying to demonstrate that there are way more unhinged posters out there than Ali.

        What I actually said in reference to gays was:

        …Republicans are making great strides in this community.  I realize we have a ways to go, but we are moving in the right direction!

        I have mixed feelings about Tanc.  But there is abslutely no evidence that Buck is

        …bigoted, a homophobic, and a little racist…

        .  

        1. Though I think your argument is nuts, and calling MAH a drama queen is also nuts. Those were against Tanc, and after re-reading I may have worded it wrongly; to include Buck in with Tanc’s lunacy. Though I do think that Buck is a sexist.

          Great strides… as long as those few gays you have in the party don’t demand to be treated like every other person in this country, than you are fine with their “disease” as Buck called it.

          But overall the Repub party has moved to the right and has become more bigoted and homophobic, and it appears to me that you think that move is a good thing.

  12. “Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas.5 Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”

    – Dwight Eisenhower,Letter to Brother, Nov. 8, 1954  

  14. Ali could you have misrepresented conservative values anymore blatantly? I expect these mischaracterizations from the liberal drones on the left, but I feel like you have gone way out of your way to make an attempt at a cheap shot. In fact your statements about bigotry almost make me wonder if there is some other motive for these patently false accusations of racism. I can’t just help, but to think that you are still severely upset over your failed campaign this year. I don’t want to believe that you would go that low so I am asking you to prove me wrong.  

    True Conservatives do not focus on the skin color, genitalia, religious beliefs, or sexuality like the liberals. If you support the ideals that our great nation was founded you are good with us no matter what any of your other characteristics are.

    SB1070 enforces federal law and does not infringe on constitutional rights. Please explain to me why you feel it is racist. Are you anti-police officer?  Please explain what is different about this law compared tithe federal law.

    You are siding with the liberal activist interpretation of the 14th amendment. Can you explain to me how your interpretation makes our country stronger?  Please tell

    me why you think I am a racist for feeling the loophole should be corrected.  Is there any other constitutional issues you would exploit for political expediency?

    The mosque at ground zero I do not believe is a constitutional or discriminatory issue. Just like you losing to Ament 80-20.  I guess you get your discrimination sensitivity from your mother.  It comes down to what is right and wrong. I personally do not

    think it is the place for a mosque just my opinion. Does

    that make me a bigot?

    Ali will you speak out against the Hamas front group aka CAIR?  Will you  condemn radical Islam? How do you feel about belonging to a group known as The Race?  

    You don’t have to because nobody takes you seriously and don’t be fooled by the drones supporting you. They like what you said because you bash Republicans and for no other reason. They think you are smart because you bash Republicans and for no other reasons.

    Let’s end my post on an issue of agreement. Conservatism should not be defined by social issues. They can be “guiding” points but not our core

    principles. The gay marriage and abortion issues are to

    decisive and only give the left fuel for attack ads. Social conservatives need to quit telling everybody how

    to live their lives and just live theirs to the best of thier moral ability.  

    1. I’m only answering two of your questions

      Question 1 – do I stand up to terrorism and condemn it?

      Have ya heard of Muslims for Bush?

      Muslims for America?

      I started both those groups, with one of their motivations being to get American Muslims active and organized in a united front against terrorism, as well as supportive of American values – seems like I’ve done a lot on that front, yes?

      Question 2 – am I bitter/upset about losing the State Convention?

      Absolutely not!

      The proof is within the fact that, upon losing, I promised to endorse and support the eventual winner with a max contribution, as well as help the GOP win back the House and Senate

      TRACER records on Colorado SOS indicate that I personally contributed to almost every rookie GOPer running for House or Senate, and if you talk to them personally, you’ll know I offered help and advice to all I could

      Second – you’ll also see a max contribution to Walker Stapleton, the eventual nominee

      Third – if you go to my old campaign webpage, you’ll notice an endorsement written for Walker Stapleton – an endorsement that came out well before JJ Ament’s endorsement

      From the actions above, I’ve followed through on every promise I made to the GOP – that doesn’t seem like a bitter person, to me?

      And people don’t take me seriously? Fair enough…. but I don’t live to be taken seriously (if I was, I wouldn’t be moving on to a career in The Arts!)… but more importantly, if no one takes me seriously and I’m such a waste of time, then why are you writing such strong replies with harsh tones, that seem to be based on anger?

      Seems like you’re taking me seriously, NO2Dems

      And last point – there is NO point of agreement – Conservatism is limited government so that the government is OUT of your private life

      Gay Marriage is not something to ignore – it is a civil liberty that should be honored by a government that is currently sabotaging what should be a Constitutional right, and as Conservatives, we should actively fight for that, not sit idly

      I believe it was Dante who defined the rings of Hell, in saying that Hell’s lowest ring is reserved for those who exhibit one quality –

      Those that during times of fight… did nothing.

      Ever read Dante, No2Dems?

      Love and peace to you – Ali

      1. I appreciate your responses and input, however I wish you would address the other remarks as well.  For distracting you from some of the more critical aspects of our discussion I apologize.  I will take you at your word regarding my accusation of you being a sour grape regarding your election loss and no I have not read Dante. No further accusations regarding that loss will be mentioned by me.  

        First and foremost I did not personally attack your mother.  I apologize for any interpretation of that.  I was merely making a statement of my opinion regarding a public statement made by her.  If she did not make the alleged public statement than I will apologize for the remark and will blame my ignorance on misinformation.  Ali did your mother make a public statement accusing Republicans of being racist?

        I was unaware of your financial support of Republican candidates after your loss and I now remember hearing of Muslims for Bush.  Thanks for your support, follow through and leadership in these areas.  However, I would argue that financial donations by a person of your wealth does not necessarily mean “true support.” Have or will you speak out against the Hamas front group CAIR?

        I will not apologize for the “Drones” comment regarding persons on this site.  The comment does not apply to all persons on this site, and even persons I do not agree with.  However, it is in my opinion that the term “Drone” is a fair and accurate description of some persons on this site.

        I agree with you, which I feel you missed, on several issues you attacked me on.  The mosque at ground zero is constitutional and the term limited government applying to our personal lives as well.  

        My points on the mosque at ground zero are that it is a disrespectful, and provocative act, not an unconstitutional act.  I would expect a Muslim leader such as yourself to be a leader in this area and encourage discussion not shut it down with accusations of bigotry.  

        Can I ask if you truly believe that Democrats are the constitution’s “true keepers” or were you just making inflammatory comments?  If that is your belief would you please provide some reasons for that conclusion other than your misinterpretation of conservative beliefs regarding the ground zero mosque.

        Why are you choosing to ignore my other questions/comments in my previous post?  They are valid arguments and questions and I feel like you made outrageous assertions and are now attempting to just run from them.  

    2. Please don’t call the good folks here “drones”

      When there was an active movement being organized to suspend the basic rights of a group of Muslims who wanted to build a Mosque in New York, it was the good folks here who defended it – that said a lot to me about who the Constitution’s true keepers are

      You can speak ill of me all you want, No2Dems, but between your insulting my mother, as well as insulting the wonderful people here, I respectfully ask you to apologize

      Love and peace – Ali

  15. We’ve had out disagreements, but man, I applaud you on this article.

    You came to my defense when I “declared my independece” (on federal candidates, anyway) and I appreciated it then.  Now I am pleased to see that you are recognizing the “issues” within the Republican party that will from considering supporting any Republican candidate (for even dogcatcher—were that an elected position).

    So a question, what is your status now?  Are you an independent?  Whatever your status, I appreciate your making civil rights a priority issue and I’m pleased to work alongside you in this battle!

    1. And I was happy to come to your defense!

      It took a heated discussion with you to ultimately realize that legalizing gay marriage and providing a logical pathway of citizenship for illegal immigrants are the TWO MOST IMPORTANT goals for all Americans, today

      I would say fixing our financial system (reimplementing the Glass Steagall Act mainly) is a close second

      Nonetheless – I always love it when a gay man asks me what my “status” is – LOL – KIDDING!

      Send me an email brother – I’m going to be more public about my political party plans next month, but for now, I’m starting a group that will help with fights like gay marriage – your insight would be deeply appreciated

      email –

      hasan2008 at mac.com

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

73 readers online now

Newsletter

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