President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
70%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
August 31, 2011 08:32 PM UTC
27 Comments
I will write some more comments about this after lunch, but I thought I’d post the whole email from Rep. Gardner so you can have the proper context in addition to Pols spin.
The big problem the country faces is lack of demand – what are the Republicans proposing to stimulate demand? (More money to corporations and the rich so they can increase their 3 trillion is the bank to 6 trillion won’t create jobs.)
The biggest problems the high-tech sector faces is not enough qualified employees – what are the Republicans proposing to increase the number of people with the skills we are short of?
Answer those two questions – because that’s the key to fixing the economy.
by pointing out that Gardner listed other bills the Republicans claim will help spur job creation. You no doubt disagree with that contention, but this diary is about what Gardner is saying and that’s what Arap posted.
But it doesn’t count as a counter-argument. So yes, I should have said try to respond with logical points that speak to the topic raised. So fair point.
in your graciousness.
Gardner’s shopping list for gutting oil & gas regulations might qualify as job creation but who wants to spend their days cleaning up polluted beaches and seabirds?
We’ve been down the deregulation road with financial derivatives and it was a total disaster for the country.
Republicans are proposing the same things and expecting a different result.
What mental midgets to think totally inside the box and offer the same stale policy failures of the past.
Do you now, or have you ever, owed anyone $50?
And yes, but not you. I figured out why you keep asking me this. I am not “GOPwarrior.”
Perhaps you think I should pay just because of the “GOP” in my name? That would be typical of you reparations-loving liberals.
I thought you might be anyone it would be H-Man
As for liberals- we love to get paid, just like anyone including freshman reps who don’t understand conflict of interest or gubernatorial candidates who think it’s ok to rob old women at the ATM.
but during the entire time “job creators’ have had every tax cut, break, loophole and subsidy heaped on them with far from severe consequences for any violation of regulations, mostly falling in the slap on the wrist range, they have not created jobs. Everybody knows this including Gardner and all those who insist on the nonsense that we can cut and deregulate our way to job creation and prosperity. They know we can’t. They just care more about their anti-tax, anti-government ideology/theology than they do about any degree of suffering among the little people.
Too bad Dem pols remain stuck in a time warp where Reagan just left office and the only way Dems can win is by promising to be almost as conservatives as the voodoo economic conservatives.
If Dems had spent Obama’s first term attacking GO(T)P bull, lies and failed policy instead of conceding that GO(T)P policy must have very high validity by offering Rs most of what they ask for at the outset of every negotiation and bragging about conceding so much so early on, they, not the GO(T)P, might now be in control of the message instead of wondering how to get anything at all accomplished between now and the 2012 election. At the moment they seem to be weighing whether or not getting something so tiny and inadequate as to be almost useless accomplished in another one sided deal is better than boldly standing up for anything at this late date.
Gardner and many other R nonsense pushers will win unless the concessions stop and the forceful attacks begin, regardless of fairy tales about civility and bi-partisanship. We tried holding hands and singing. It failed miserably. Standing up would at least give people some reason to hope that the future will be better if we end the GO(T)P majority in the House, get stronger in the Senate and keep the White House in 2012.
that Obama is wrong to make concessions and try to work with Republicans. Our national problems impact everybody and everybody needs to be a stakeholder in their solutions. Obama from the very beginning as worked at being a uniter in spite of the resistance from both sides of the political spectrum. Before Nixon, China was an evil land that supported North Vietnam. Now they own a trillion dollars of our debt. Someone had to make the first move.
The years 2009 & 2010 saw tremendous strains on our country and calls for violent rebellion. Bringing the country together is of vital importance to future as a country and I would guess that Obama believes that persistent efforts to seek cooperation will strengthen his hand in the long run.
The country was going to be in bad shape for a long time so Obama is our national whipping boy and everyone gets vent on him for our national failings. Whipping McCain would have been beating up an old man and Palin would have turned it into a personal victimfest. Obama was the one who could handle this much abuse and keep turning the other cheek and believing in our common destiny. Of course he made mistakes but I believe he also has charted a course of reconciliation that is needed if this country is going to move forward together.
I don’t see how you can make a case for that being a wrong assessment. He’s been much stronger in the foreign policy arena with his handling of situations such as the elimination of Bin Laden and getting it right in Libya as prime examples.
One way concessions do not constitute working “with” anyone. Repeatedly offering most of your lunch money the moment you see your bully coming down the street and then agreeing to hand it all over after all while crying “uncle” does not constitute working “with” your bully.
Obama and the Dem leadership failing to make even halfway decent deals looking like helpless victims while failing is not a good thing. I don’t see how you can glass half full spin it into anything good. It needs to change and it needs to change big.
with your assessment that Democratic leadership failed to make “even halfway decent deals”.
I think Biden delivered in the 11th hour of the debt ceiling negotiations by getting a two year extension and the military budget on the table. The Bush tax giveaway extensions were accompanied by extended unemployment benefits for millions of desperate people. We’ll see whether the Roberts court takes out ACA but it has a lot of good things in it and Democrats set it up so that portions can’t be severed. The first round of stimulus spending which was admittedly too small for the magnitude of the problem did brake an economic free fall.
Since Obama now holds the fate of the Bush tax giveaways in his hands regardless of whether he gets reelected or not and the deficit bogey-man is taking a back seat to jobs, the president has an opportunity to go on the offense again.
Whether it is spin or not, Obama has taken a course of reconciliation and is betting that the American people can see who is being reasonable and who is being petty. If the American people aren’t that smart than they deserve a Rick Perry or Mitt Romney. I’m proud of the president for continuing to pursue a path that is inclusive and emphasizes the need for all parties to be involved in finding solutions to the problems of our time. If you want to characterize that as appeasement than go for it but you’ll have to get line with everyone else who holds him personally accountable for all the failings of our nation.
But I think we managed it without being dicks, don’t you?
I certainly hope, in the end, it does turn out more glass half full. It’s not as if I’m rooting for failure and a tragic 2012 election.
But I absolutely believe that Obama and the Dem leadership now absolutely must take a more muscular,aggressive stance even if the only thing it’s good for at this late date is sending the message that a 2012 election that results in even more GO(T)P power instead of more Dem power would be a disaster for the overwhelming majority.
Republicans controlled the debate as long as they could threaten a default on our national obligations.
This is where we see if Obama has learned anything about dealing with his adversaries.
I have to say I still like the guy. No scandals in his administration so far. Bin Laden is dead and Iraq is not in flames. ACA while flawed is still better than anything the Republicans can come up with. He has worked diligently to make the country more secure and more united. I still like him a lot.
It’s his effectiveness. But another thing we can agree on is wanting him to succeed. The presently available alternatives are all nauseating to contemplate.
I thought the bail out of GM was an effective use of stimulus funding.
I thought NOAA & FEMA were effective in their response to Irene. I read reports that they calculated landfall within ten miles.
I think killing Bin Laden and his replacement were effective.
I think is was effective having an experienced legislator like Biden (6 terms as a senator) involved in the ACA and debt ceiling negotiations. Biden was an extremely effective choice for VP.
I thought that Libya was an effective use of military assets.
I thought his speech in Cario in 2009 which presaged the Arab Spring was effective. If you haven’t read it yet you should. It’s called “A New Begining”.
I thought releasing oil from the national strategic oil reserves was an effective way to blunt the rise in gas prices. With Libyan oil production getting ready to come back on line, oil prices should stablized lower.
I thought it was effective to sack the leadership at the MMS responsible for oversight of offshore drilling and rewriting the offshore regulations.
If you want to talk about Obama being responsible for job creation than I would disagree that it is his responsibility. Aren’t the “job creators” supposed to be the ones who create jobs?
What is going to be interesting to see next week is if he has come things that he can do as the chief executive that doesn’t require Congressional cooperation.
In short I think the actual delivery of government goods and services has been measurably more effective under Obama.
And I get it. You’re an Obama campaigner. Hey, I want to see the guy reelected, too. I’d also like to see him learn from his first term experience and get better at using the power of the presidency on domestic issues, especially in muscular messaging, and I’d also like to see some dramatic improvement in messaging throughout the Dem party, from Obama on down, in time to have a crack at a better congress to go along with keeping the Rs out of the WH in the 2012 election.
So no need to bombard me with happy talk. I’ve just never been the cheerleader/pep rally type. I always joined those cutting the rally to go out for a smoke back in my HS days.
Your “Up with People” style sunny, happy dance message is a little sugary for my taste but I get it. You’re a huge fan, Obama is doing a super job on everything except maybe one or two things that are entirely not his fault, his job, etc. I wouldn’t dream of trying to subvert you or kidnap you for deprogramming or anything like that. Relax.
My wife is also such a sweet person that we were afraid our kids were going to melt away in the rain. Fortunately they grew up to be honest and kind adults so life’s good for me.
Later gator.
And I’m sure you won’t be offended if I fail to call on you when I need someone to negotiate an important deal for me. BTW, my friends and family think I’m pretty sweet but nobody worries about any of us melting.
Still looking for a reason to vote FOR Obama, rather than against the GOP nominee…
I am not alone. If he wants enthusiastic support he had better quit capitulating to every Republican demand…
http://www.reuters.com/article…
He acts concerned about how life expectancies in America are for the first time less for today’s kids than their parents and then this? Come on! Argh. It takes a lot to get me frustrated with Obama, knowing what he’s dealing with in the House, but this is ridic.
None of those bills will increase jobs and a few will actually hurt job growth in the high-tech industry. None can be classified as a jobs bill.
As many of the Republicans appear to be economically illiterate let me put it this way. The local McDonald’s can easily make twice as many hamburgers, but putting them on the shelves to spoil does no good when there are no new customers.
Corporate America is sitting on 3 trillion of cash reserves. And they will invest that money as soon as demand starts increasing. The government needs to focus on demand generation.
because you can’t more easily pollute a river or something ? Crazy.
Cynicism aside David, I agree with you totally on this issue. These are not jobs bills, they’re just bullshit.
Until people have more and better jobs and therefore money to spend, looser credit will not, in and of itself, solve the problem.
If you don’t have enough demand to keep 3 people employed, you don’t need credit to allow you to hire on a fourth. You need customers with money bringing in more business than 2 or 3 can handle.
I realize that saying in order to have money people need jobs but in order to create more jobs you need demand seems circular. That’s where large government investments in things like infrastructure, fixing schools, etc. can come in.
The people employed doing those things that really desperately need to be done in any case would instantly create more spending in more places of business. Far from public sector employment somehow being at the expense of private sector, as Rs seem to want us to believe, it can get the private sector moving and creating more jobs when nothing much else is available to achieve that goal.
We have 5 give-aways to the oil and gas industry for half of it, along with everything else Pols mentioned.
The patent thing isn’t going to affect jobs much either way, I don’t think… the effect is greatly exaggerated. Even under today’s so-called “first to invent” rules, you still would have to show that you’d written up a description and diagrams of the invention for the application to obtain priority. Once you’ve done that, it’s not terribly relevant whether we count the date you completed your disclosure paperwork, or the date you finished the filing. I might even argue that the way things are now lets so-called inventors document that they described the invention, wait for someone else to infringe, and then file their application just makes things worse than they already are.
What would help tremendously would be some real patent reform, of the type that no longer turns entire industries into minefields where if you step in the wrong place, you might get sued for a few million dollars. I know in my profession, I probably can’t spend a productive work day without infringing on a few patents. And if I tried to do any kind of diligent research into what they are, I’d just be tripling the potential damages someone can claim in court against me. Maybe I could challenge those patents and have them overturned, but that has costs in the millions. Even in U.S. patent lawsuits with damages under $1 million, the lawyers walk away with an average of $600,000. Winning a patent lawsuit as the defendant can drive you broke.
Frankly, while software is certainly among the worst of it, we’ve now blown the doors open to all sorts of patent abuse in plenty of other fields, as well. To be honest, the only place I’ve seen any kind of argument that patents work is in the pharma industry, and that’s because of a unique and remarkable combination of two factors: (a) getting a drug on the market requires many millions of dollars anyway, so the deterrent to people who can’t afford legal departments is moot, and (b) there’s enough court precedent to set very concrete guidelines for how specific the applications have to be: among other things, they must describe the exact molecular structure of the active ingredient, and if even one atom or bond is different, the patent is not infringed. Even so, there is good economics work arguing that we’d be better off with regard to affordable drugs if patents weren’t granted there, either.
As a stop-gap measure, I’d be in favor of invalidating all patents, maybe except in well-defined fields like that which can argue that patents are working.
In the long run, though, I do think there are things that ought to be patentable. We just need to reduce the quantity of applications to the point that we can employ enough competent and informed examiners who can answer the question: will society be better off over the next 20 years if I grant this patent and therefore disclose the invention, or if I reject it and allow the inventor to protect it as a trade secret instead? If the disclosure is poorly written or unclear, or if the result is something that’s obvious or easily observed, then they say no.
Sadly, today we’ve got it exactly wrong… we have a patent office that takes the approach of “we can’t adequately examine all of these, so we’ll just grant them all”. Wrong answer. If you’re overwhelmed, just grab 90% of them chosen at random and reject them. No one is entitled to a patent; it’s a deal with society in exchange for disclosure, and if society isn’t convinced we’re getting the better side of it, we shouldn’t take the deal.