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%
March 17, 2007 03:40 PM UTC
103 Comments
I spent a pleasant evening watching the Valerie Plame hearing on C-SPAN. It reminded me of the many pleasant evenings I spent in 1974 watching Watergate hearings. What on earth was the White House thinking?
They weren’t thinking. They were reacting. It was “f*ck Wilson. We’re taking him out.”
Remember this line from the lips of GW, “If you mess with us we’ll kill you”? The WH is inhabited by thugs.
is how much popular support those thugs had for such a long time. It’s an indictment of the country, not just the current administration.
We OFTEN elect disasters to public office. Then we wonder, “How did we do that?” The system, frankly, doesn’t work very well any more, particularly for state and federal offices where LOTS of money is required to get anywhere in the process.
My very own brother nearly voted for W in 2004, which would have resulted in his disenfranchisement from the family. I have no idea why, he is very intelligent and usually sensible. He did finally vote for Kerry because the thought of 4 years’ opportunity for W to appoint Supreme Court justices chilled him.
The thing that really chaps me about the Valerie Plame thing, though, is the motivation for outing her. People say her identity was divulged to discredit her husband’s report, but how would the report have been discredited because its author’s wife was a CIA operative? I don’t see how that makes his report less credible. On the other hand, it certainly sends a message to anyone who has an opinion adverse to the White House or who is related to anyone with an adverse opinion: Keep your mouth shut or we will do whatever we can to ruin your career and put your life in jeopardy.
Does this differ in any way from the Nixon White House? Nixon showed he would use any means available to him (IRS, FBI, CIA) to quiet his critics (or “enemies,” as he saw them). W/Rove/Cheney have shown the same thing.
I’m with the tranny in pink in the background of the Plame hearing: Impeach Bush Now!
— it’s the chilling message that’s sent to others: Keep quiet or this will happen to you. The Administration’s actions inflicted direct damage and pain to Ambassador Wilson plus his wife and family. It instantly ended a career. It’s hard to imagine what that must have been like for Plame. We need to put ourselves in her shoes, make sure we understand the damage that was done to her. We must also comprehend the damage done to the network of covert CIA employees around the world who worked with Plame, and in turn the damage done to this country.
on a smaller scale, in a smaller arena. And I have become almost obsessed with holding people who do these kinds of things responsible, at whatever level they do it.
W, Cheney, Rove, and libby are traitors, plain and simple. It amazes me that ppl will stick up for them. If a group of dems had done the same thing, these same ppl who are sticking up for W and his ilk, would rightly demand blood. In fact, they are the same group that argues that Clinton should have been ousted over lying on a question that we had no right to ask.
Me, I just want 4 hangings and not any more innocent ppl. Plame and the country are getting screwed. The funny thing is, that Nixon pretty much got away with watergate. Likewise, reagan and his ilk were true traitors in every definition of the law (by making deals with Iran against a sitting president), and of course, the ensuing iran-contra affair. What this is showing is that we are teaching politicians that they can get by with break the law and make BILLIONS of dollars. This will continue until we show them that Americans are sick of this and start to incarcerate all that are corrupt. And in the case of treason, hang them.
when actual crimes have been committed. Unfortunately, there are “crimes against humanity” that aren’t defined as such, and aren’t legally punishable. In such cases, I would settle for ruined political careers, and shame attached to the names of those responsible. I do believe in the rule of law.
Don’t you think Fitz would have charged someone if there was any possible way he could?
It’s bad enough that he knew the leaker was Armitage for months and continued the witch hunt.
You guys are being so ignorant – the leak wasn’t Cheney, wasn’t Bush, wasn’t Rove.
It was Armitage, and he can’t stand Bush.
Plame and Wilson are a disgrace.
I can tell you that you most certainly wouldn’t call me “boy” in person. Great response, once again. No substance, all blather.
The blather is all yours.
if it kicked you in the ass.
No excuse for your bull!!!!!! Nobody here beleives that you can wipe your own ass, much less kick someone else’s!!!! wHAT A JOKE!!!!
Fitz wants to. But the problem was that he did not have all the evidence of WHO leaked it and who pushed it. As to Armitage, it was not established that he was the leak. If he was, then
Valerie is nothing but a victim from the traitors in the white house.
We no longer hang ppl for treason. It is pure jail time. Funny thing, is that I am very opposed to the death sentence, but if we are going to have it, I do believe that it should be used for treason. My reasoning is simple. If I murder several ppl or just a cop, then I am eligible for death . But treason puts the whole nation at risk, and may lead to multiple deaths. Consider the case of the California kid working for Al Qaeda. If he gave them info, it could very well have been used in 9/11. IOW, he may be partially responsible for 3000 deaths. And yet, he would not be eligible for the death sentence. The only thing weirder is that we execute “painlessly” and we do it in private. If we want it to be effective, it should a hanging,electrocution, firing squad, even guillotine. In addition, it should be on TV for all to see.
eh?
Don’t worry abput it…
The reason Armitage wasn’t charged is that Plame did not qualify as covert under the legal description.
Wilson’s testimony about his trip was discredited by the bi-partisan Senate Intelligence committee. Plame’s testimony last week was also in direct contradiction to previous testimony given by her CIA co-workers, and by email evidence presented at the Senate hearing.
NR’s John Podhoretz had a piece on the ridiculousness of Plame’s storytelling:
This is what Valerie Plame Wilson just said about her husband’s trip: “I did not recommend him, I did not suggest him, I did not have the authority.” An officer serving under her was upset to have received an inquiry from the vice president’s office about yellowcake from Niger and evidently, while she was comforting that junior officer, some guy walked by her office and suggested her husband should go to Niger to check it out.
She said she was ambivalent about the idea because she didn’t want to have to put her 2 year-old twins to bed by herself at night. Still, she and the guy who had just happened to walk by then went to her supervisor.
Supervisor: Well, when you go home this evening, would you ask your husband to come in.
Then her supervisor asked her to write an e-mail about the idea. She did so. That e-mail, she said, was the basis for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence claim that she had been responsible for sending her husband to Niger for the CIA.
In other words, she didn’t recommend him or suggest him. Rather, it was a guy who walked by.
Sir Robin – you’ve used that comeback twice now. I actually do have a good idea of what constitutes substance, and this:
“We’ll see who is being ignorant…Boy!”
ain’t it.
Also, if you’d like to get together sometime and test out some of your insults in person to see what happens, shoot me an email.
It has been established positively that it was Armitage. Novak told investigators months before the investigation that this was the case, and Armitage corroborated his story.
They continued to investigate because the whole process was a politically motivated circus.
First insult out of the blocks. You’re like so many cowards I know that love to dish it out, but can’t take it.
Dick Armitage was the leak. Admittedly. End of story.
You are ignoring that truth, defining ignorance as it relates to this story.
Here’s an insult – you’re a laughing stock. Even your allies on this board beg people not to skip over your posts, just because you are the author.
You are incapable of civil debate, and it’s obvious that you use your anonymity here to try to protect you from the things you say that would get you laughed out of he room (among your brethren) or running for your life (around almost anyone else) if you said them around normal folks.
It’s ok to disagree, to taunt a little, but I think you take your act over the line. It wouldn’t fly in person, and I think you’re well aware of that…
Not an insult?
That’s an interesting characterization. Lame as well. But, you’re right in one sense. I will not stop speaking about about corruption in government, lies in government, illegal and unnecessary wars, ripping off American taxpayers, pissing down my neck trying to convince me its raining….get used to it and fuck off.
Fitzgerald has not fully said wether she was or was not covert (but implied several times that she was). Apparently, at one time she had an address at an American embassy and by her word, she admits that she was working a desk job at Langley. Almost by definition, she should not be covert (she can be traced). But a number of her have co-workers claimed otherwise and say that she was NOC. More importantly, they point out the illogic of what is being said. That has included such stupid things as saying that to be covert, you had to have lived overseas (several have pointed out that the law states “served”, not lived that some like to use).
But Fitzgerald did say that she was “classified”. Basically, he has said that she was not to be outed.
Now, as to Libbey and the others, the problem that Fitz says that he has had, is not proving that they outed her. He has indicated that they did. What he has a hard time proving is that they “KNOWINGLY” did so. That is, he can prove wether it was a series of mistakes OR that they intended to out somebody that knew was undercover. Afterall, libbey has admitted that he spoke of her to Nowak AND the other reporters. His argument was that she was not covert (pretty much disproved) AND that others had outed her before him.
Armitage told one of the reporters(Nowak) that she was behind this, but supposedly, he did not know that she was covert and therefore can not be held accountable (since charges were not pressed would mostly likely indicate that it was true). In fact, Fitgerald has said that if more info comes forward to prove knowledge, then he will prosecute. Otherwise, he would never have pushed charges against libbey. Apparently, with the other 3, they simply pulled the reagan tactic of saying “I do not recall”.
Funny thing, is that because reagan and w. got by with all this, Future politicians will figure it out that it is in their best interest to simply do “I do not recall” to whenever they commit crimes or treason.
Of course, I wonder what would have happened had clinton used that same line. I guess that Lewinski would have been insulted and been more forthcoming 🙂
A prosecutor, looking to charge someone but can’t. He can imply all he wants, but if he doesn’t charge someone with all the resources he was given, then NO CRIME.
What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Maybe it only applies to Dems.
Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn’t remember, didn’t know, or something similar.
Bill Kennedy 116
Harold Ickes 148
Ricki Seidman 160
Bruce Lindsey 161
Bill Burton 191
Mark Gearan 221
Mack McLarty 233
Neil Egglseston 250
Hillary Clinton 250
John Podesta 264
Jennifer O’Connor 343
Dwight Holton 348
Patsy Thomasson 420
Jeff Eller 697
FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES: In the portions of President Clinton’s Jan. 17 deposition that have been made public in the Paula Jones case, his memory failed him 267 times. This is a list of his answers and how many times he gave each one.
I don’t remember – 71
I don’t know – 62
I’m not sure – 17
I have no idea – 10
I don’t believe so – 9
I don’t recall – 8
I don’t think so – 8
I don’t have any specific recollection – 6
I have no recollection – 4
Not to my knowledge – 4
I just don’t remember – 4
I don’t believe – 4
I have no specific recollection – 3
I might have – 3
I don’t have any recollection of that – 2 I don’t have a specific memory – 2
I don’t have any memory of that – 2
I just can’t say – 2
I have no direct knowledge of that – 2
I don’t have any idea – 2
Not that I recall – 2
I don’t believe I did – 2
I can’t remember – 2
I can’t say – 2
I do not remember doing so – 2
Not that I remember – 2
I’m not aware – 1
I honestly don’t know – 1
I don’t believe that I did – 1
I’m fairly sure – 1
I have no other recollection – 1
I’m not positive – 1
I certainly don’t think so – 1
I don’t really remember – 1
I would have no way of remembering that – 1
That’s what I believe happened – 1
To my knowledge, no – 1
To the best of my knowledge – 1
To the best of my memory – 1
I honestly don’t recall – 1
I honestly don’t remember – 1
That’s all I know – 1
I don’t have an independent recollection of that – 1
I don’t actually have an independent memory of that – 1
As far as I know – 1
I don’t believe I ever did that – 1
That’s all I know about that – 1
I’m just not sure – 1
Nothing that I remember – 1
I simply don’t know – 1
I would have no idea – 1
I don’t know anything about that – 1
I don’t have any direct knowledge of that – 1
I just don’t know – 1
I really don’t know – 1
I can’t deny that, I just — I have no memory of that at all – 1
Clinton was not convicted. Case closed. Still lots to come with this bunch.
Do you believe that W. did nothing?
Especially to a humanist, like me. To be honest, I don’t care about nations: I care about humanity (and beyond). I’ve written frequently about “collective action problems,” and nations solve them at levels below that of the nation, and exaccerbate them at levels above that of the nation. I think we’ve reached (and passed) a point in history in which the value of nation-states has tipped, and the latter, in general, is a bigger problem than the former is an asset.
So, “treason,” to be meanningful to me, has to be defined as treason against (or a betrayal of) humanity, not against a particular nation. Was it treasonous to try to execute Hitler? Sure. Was it a crime against humanity? Just the opposite! Was it treasonous to sign the Declaration of Independence? Absolutely. Was it justified? We like to think so (though I have my doubts). No, I’m all for treason, when humanism demands it.
On the other hand, anyone who takes it upon themself to break the law in accord with what they perceive to be a higher imperative better the hell be right! And they better be willing to pay the consequences. But I’d rather that death weren’t one of them, just in case they do turn out to have been right.
I still believe that there is treason against countries. In particular, until a free-elected leader has committed a crime, then they deserve the minimal loyalty of at least not being undermined (of course, in my book, if somebody does not wish to support their direction that is not treason). You mentioned Hitler. But we all know that he committed heinous crimes against humanity and his country. Just for the crimes against his country, I believe that his countrymen should have taken him down. Reagan and W also committed treason. Reagan was actually worse in my book. It started BEFORE he was elected president. That means that he contacted what was an enemy of our nation and cut a deal with them. Not only did he undermine a sitting president, but he made increased the risk to ALL Americans down the road that we would be kidnapped and held for hostage. He and his ilk committed full treason in both law and spirit. W. has also committed treason by outing Plame, lieing to us about Iraq, etc. But he was president. Even I have to admit that calling it treason is more based on the spirit and not the law.
But you have some good points. I will probably think more about it. And yes, I do change my mind.
Back up, buddy. I presume that you are talking aboutthe Iran hostage situation. There is no evidence that Regan negotiated with Iran prior to being elected. NONE I didn’t happen to like Regan, but I won’t tolerate accusations made against anyone w/o somekind of proof. Such statements do not advance the discussion, but in and of themselves undermine the legitimacy of our government. Please STOP it.
Incidentally, there was an attempt to assassinate Hitler. The coup failed and all involved were hung.
On the day that reagan became pres, the hostages were released. Later, reagan got deep into iran-contra where he was giving iran money, weapons, and aid in exchange for them giving guns to the contra. In addition, Iran Contra was also known as Arms for Hostages. Now, nobody in the admin admitted to this, but they all stonewalled and said I DO NOT RECALL. Reagan and his ilk were later pardoned by Poppa Bush and nearly ALL evidence was classified. Hopefully, when the next pres comes to office, he will revoke W’s edict that allows past pres. to hide their work.
Overall, I liked poppa’s pres. but this is one thing that pissed me off. There was a LOT of evidence that reagan did in fact negotiate with the iranians BEFORE he became pres. The fact that Iran turned over the hostage to reagan on his becoming pres says it all. Afterall, do you really think that they did that because they thought that they could deal with reagan? No. Plain and simple, The man was a traitor and he and his ilk should have swung.
Why hold Reagan to a different standard than Bush?
I know. And as long as it’s against the comtemporary laws of the land, it’s treason. Since laws can be perverted in ways that are later repudiated, or in ways that from other, perhaps more reasonable, perspectives can be considered “crimes against humanity,” it follows inevitably that *some* acts of technical treason are in reality heroic acts on behalf of humanity. Therefore, I very strongly oppose treating treason as a capital crime, since doing so makes it more difficult to fight against a legal regime run amok, when such regimes arise.
Not that you would consider any of it to be true. Many books written on the subject with lots of references. Put “October Surprise” into Amazon’s search, I just did.
Of course, the Iranians who released the hostages after 20 minutes of the RR administration were just scared shitless, right? If you believe that that was coincidence, I have bridge for sale.
elected to office at the local, state and national levels, the “disasters” elected to public office are minuscule in number. The system works fine, adjusted for inflation, of course. : ) It costs too much to run for office; more people should vote; voters ought to know more about candidates and issues and the people running elections ought to be more effective and efficient. But, still, the system works.
Too many lobbyists, interest groups, rich people, white folks, men and straights but the system works. It works slowly and is hard to change. But, the system still works. If it sounds like I’m proud of the country and the people who make it run, it’s because I am. With all the problems, weak leaders, corrupt office holders and ideologues all over the political spectrum, I still am proud the system continues to work.
except for all the other – Winston Churchill
There is no such thing as “democracy,” or “dictatorship,” or “ologarchy,” or “monarchy” (or, for that matter, “capitalism,” or “socialism,” or “communism,” or “feudalism”) as absolute, monolithic descriptions of political-economic systems. They are merely rough-and-ready approximations, covering, often very clumsily, wide ranges of variation, much of which has not yet been tried.
I like Churchill, I like his wit and his way with words, but, as is so often the case, a brilliant phrase (or philosophy) when conceived can become a bastion of blindness after a million or so repetitions. Yes, in the history of political forms, modern democracy has been a valuable innovation, and one which should never be discarded wholesale. But, in the process of very cautiously refining it, we my arrive at something that no longer bears its name, or no longer resembles its original form, yet which accomplishes all that democracy accomplishes (i.e., holding leaders accountible to those they represent), but does so more effectively and will less dysfunction. Ojala!
Complacency is the worst of all political systems…, period.
If you put a monkey in front of a typewriter long enough, and let him clack away, eventually he’ll come up with some good ideas…, though with lots of typos!
serves humanity. Thanks for your contributions, and a hearty thank you for your posts!
they STILL have support.
I have decided it is a guilt issue. People who did vote for Bush, especially those who voted twice for him, must feel on some level that there is blood on their hands. He lied to them about the reason for war; he lied about what happened during and after Katrina; he lied about Plamegate and he is lying about the firing of the US Attorneys.
I cannot fathom how anyone of any intelligence and/or integrity cannot be sickened by this adminitation. They are thugs, and the worse kind….the kind that are knowingly and willingly putting profit before morality or humanity.
when people learn over time that what they thought was true isn’t and they need to clean up a mess and change directions? The people should be celebrated rather than berated. Of course, the most frustrating part is how long it takes to decide a new direction and to make a change once to carry it out. Also, when some folks don’t get exactly what they want in the change process they will continue to stir the pot which sets the stage for the next cycle. Have hope that “we the people” will make changes because we know they are needed.
it didn’t take a genius to evaluate the current administration before they ever took power, and it took an idiot not to accurately evaluate them by the time of the ’04 election. Cheney, Rumsfeld, ASHCROFT!!?? Give me a break!! Talk about a line-up of firghtening reactionaries!!
There are many things I respect and admire about the United States, and many things I don’t. But I have always feared that are ever-present, and ever-arrogant, belief in our own “manifest destiny;” our willingness to assuage our cynical pursuit of our own already-well-served interests with the self-delusion of global benevolence; and our tendency toward “cowboy-individualism,” even when translated into “cowboy-nationalism,” put us in constant flirtation with, and constant danger of, a new kind of fascism.
My second thought after hearing about 9-11 was “woe to the world, that has enraged the imperial homeland!” My third thought was “woe to the imperial homeland, that will soon be under martial law!” And, to be honest, in spite of (often legitimate) criticisms from the left, the U.S. has generally been more restrained in both aspects than I had feared might be the case. So we are resilient, and our democratic values are relatively strong and steadfast.
But not perfectly so, and, at this point I would say, not even satisfactorily so. Why is it an indictment of the nation? Because we re-elected a president who attacked a sovereign nation on the principal of “pre-emptive strike,” which was precisely the Japanese legitimation for Pearl Harbor (and their calculations were at least correct!). Because we have acted toward other nations in ways that would profoundly appall our collective sensibilities were any other nation to act with similar disregard and aggression toward us. Because we have retreated from international cooperation in favor of unilateral bullying, to the great cost of the world’s future prospects for relative peace and stability. Because we have thrown gasoline on a fire, and are now left with no choice but to run for our lives and let it burn…, in someone else’s neighborhood, “thank god.”
This is the thing that kills me about we Americans, our ability to insulate ourselves in a cacoon which produces for its own consumption almost all information about the rest of the world, and continues to buy a self-satisfying mythology about what a force for good we are in the world. “Wake up and smell the humus!” We’ve been heading in the wrong direction for over half a century, as far as the rest of the world is concerned. And we are, or should be, citizens of that world.
because by using it you paint with too broad a brush. It’s bombastic rhetoric failing to recognize that over time people supporting the president and the war have diminished. While there will always be those who continue to support the president, it is clear they are in the minority. Just because many of these folks didn’t get there as quickly as you doesn’t mean the whole country ought to be indicted for the actions of leaders the majority no longer supports. And, the listing of all the actions you take issue with doesn’t change my criticism.
I’m not giving myself or any other American a pass on the way we act re: the rest of the world. Over-the-top language does fit as one of those actions for which we are taken to task.
The world’s most powerful nation attacking another sovereign nation without direct provocation on the basis of a false belief that they were preparing to attack us is utterly disgraceful. We, the people, sanctioned it, waved flags in support of it, and waxed ignorant about how beloved we would be, or should be, for doing it. An incomplete change in popular support due to OUR losses (not due to any shame, or even awareness, of the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis that died at our hands, and the other tens of thousands that died as the indirect result of our actions), years later, does not exonerate us as a nation or a people.
I agree that there is way too much “over-the-top language” in political discourse, but, IMHO, there is way too little within our borders on behalf of a humanistic perspective of our role in the world. The disparity between our perspective of ourselves and the rest of the world’s perspective of us should be instructive and humbling. Instead, we just assume that they’re all nuts, and we are the only sane ones in the world. How convenient!
The USA had the potential to lead the world, gradually, into the slowly developing global federalism that is probably inevitable in the long run. Instead, by refusing to compromise with nations we disagree with, by refusing to see ourselves as just one member of a community of nations, by refusing to devolve some of our national sovereignty to viable international institutions (after having taken the lead in doing so immediately after WWII), we have reneged on that promise, and failed to fulfill that potential. Rather than actually being something new and better, we have let ourselves devolve into more of the same. And that is really a shame.
phrase but we agree on other things such as the morally repugnant unprovoked invasion of Iraq in the name of the “war on terror”; too much over-the-top political language; the disgraceful squandering of our world wide leadership role and many other actions I’m sure.
or to much government interference?
Dist. 8 hopeful pleaded guilty
By George Merritt
Denver Post Staff Writer
Article Last Updated: 03/16/2007 01:33:30 AM MDT
A Denver City Council candidate pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in 2003 after being accused of hitting a child, records show.
Darrell Watson, who is running for the open District 8 council seat, received a deferred sentence for “wrongs to a minor,” according to police and court records.
Watson was taking care of the boy, and the child suffered bruises after Watson and the boy’s father spanked him. Both men were charged.
The boy’s mother, Lisa Buchholtz, reported the bruises as an incident of child abuse, according to a Denver police report.
Buchholtz could not be reached Thursday evening. The report referred to the child’s father only as “Kevin.”
“Lisa states that when she picked up (the child) Kevin told her that (the child) had some bruises on his back side from being punished,” a Denver police officer wrote in a report. “It was related by Kevin that he ‘may have gone a little overboard’ when he disciplined (the child).”
The report said “according to the victim’s father, he and his partner had “hit him with their hands and he didn’t realize how hard they had hit the victim until about an hour after they had hit him and saw the marks.”
The boy’s age was not available.
Watson said Thursday that the spankings were a form of discipline he had been urged to participate in by a family counselor. The boy’s parents had decided that was an appropriate punishment in certain circumstances.
“For the first year and a half, I chose not to participate in any discipline outside of timeout & or stuff like that,” he said in a phone interview. “However, (spanking) was an agreement within the family nucleus that we created.”
In February 2003, Watson said, he and the boy’s parents all agreed that the boy had misbehaved and deserved a spanking.
“There were three swats on the behind by myself,” Watson said. “He did not change his behavior, so about 30 minutes after that, the biological father spanked the minor child again three times, and that was it.”
Watson said he pleaded guilty because it was “in the best interest of the child.”
http://www.denverpos…
keep bringing this up why?
Because Watson’s “pre-response” to the Post raised more questions than the story.
Waston claims: “Child protective services found no abuse and the charge of misdemeanor was given to the child’s biological father and to me. It was the lowest possible charge that could be given.”
Um, lowest possible charge except for no charge at all. If no abuse was found, why did police charge him with anything?
Also, some have said that Watson spent 10 days in jail for this, but others have said this isn’t true, that Watson was only put on probation.
Much as Watson’s campaign wants to pretend that no one cares, people do care and are talking about this, wondering what the real story is. It’s hard to defend Darrell when all you get from the campaign is an odd-sounding account of two men taking turns to administer spankings, and that these spankings left marks visible a week later, bad enough to get the police involved.
People are saying, What??!
I haven’t heard a groundswell of concern about this, other than a few comments on this board (which were balanced against other comments expressing a different view). Most people seem to think this is merely a tempest in a teapot. Why do you care so much about generating a scandal here? Are you grinding an ax against Watson?
This thing has been a matter of public record for years, and you are welcome to check it out.
This thing was a misdemeanor and there was no jail time.
You can try to continue to toss mud over this and try to stretch its shelf life with a bit of rumor mongering, but the facts are all there in the open, the response of the public to the campaign has been fantastic, and there are real issues in Denver for people to talk about.
Something like this can end up losing an election for someone. You can spin it any way you want but the cops being called, a charge being filed, and an agreement to plead guilty are so far beyond the level most people use to punish their kids.
If I was in that campaign I would worry – a lot.
Are others guilty of causing harm to children rallying to the Watson cause?
Serioulsy folks…real issues like character are what people of Denver often talk about. If you don’t think character is part of that legitimate discussion then say so.
As to this being part of the public record, it should have come from Watson first not from the Denver Post. Clearly Watson was trying to hide from this.
If he thought he did the right thing in this case and was being unfairly targeted by the police then he should stand up and say so. If he thinks he made a mistake then he should say he’s sorry. It seems like he was just hoping no one one would find out about it.
I think if he had been in office for a while and people knew him they could understand this, but for a lot of people this will be the first time they hear his name. Not a great way to introduce yourself if you ask me.
As an initial matter, I don’t understand why Watson is obligated to tell everyone he meets about his past guilty plea. It’s public record, and he doesn’t seem to deny it or try to cover it up. I see no reason why it needs to be in his campaign literature.
In any event, you seem to have concluded that his guilty plea to a misdemeanor is a serious and unforgiveable indictment of Watson’s “character.” Fine, that’s your decision.
Others seem to have concluded that this one incident (which is all we know about, as far as I read) is not a deal-breaking “character” flaw. Rather than accept this, however, you seem to call for more “discussion” and defend the legitimacy of that coveted discussion. Thus, it seems that you really won’t be satisfied until everyone shares your conclusion.
but I posted it Saturday morning cause I thought it was an odd story and I didn’t know yet how I felt about it, but after a day or so of reflection my opinion hardended. People can think what they like of it I just think its a bad first impression to make. I wouldn’t have him baby sit my kids but what you do with yours is your call.
I don’t think Watson is running for town babysitter, rather he’s running for city council (which has no official babysitting responsibility).
So, no worries! 🙂
It might make more people actually pay attention to these races.
Colorado Rankings
State Delegation Average Score: 12.49 State Rank: 50
Senate:
Name Rank in
State Score Rank in
Senate
Sen. Salazar (D-CO) 1 18.27 50
Sen. Allard (R-CO) 2 15.06 65
House:
Name Rank in
State Score Rank in
House
Rep. DeGette (D-CO-1) 1 19.59 116
Rep. Udall (D-CO-2) 2 19.52 121
Rep. Salazar (D-CO-3) 3 14.03 220
Rep. Perlmutter (D-CO-7) 4 12.00 271
Rep. Musgrave (R-CO-4) 5 5.90 416
Rep. Tancredo (R-CO-6) 6 4.03 427
Rep. Lamborn (R-CO-5) 7 4.00 428
Congress.org, a Washington, D.C.-focused Web site has released its pre-season power rankings for members of Congress.
The rankings purport to measure how much power individual members have, and how effective they are in using that power. According to the Web site, “Power is often hard to define, but for Congress it boils down to how effective one is at advancing an agenda, whether it is a personal agenda, party agenda or district or state agenda.”
The most powerful members of Congress are House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The least powerful are Rep. William Jefferson (D-La) (he of the notorious freezer full of money) and Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.).
Colorado’s delegation did not stack up very well. On the Republican side, Doug Lamborn was ranked 428th out of 439 members of the House of Representatives, Tom Tancredo was just ahead of him at 427th and Marilyn Musgrave was scarcely a powerhouse at 416th.
State Democrats didn’t fare much better. In the House, Diana DeGette and Mark Udall led the pack at 116th and 121st, while John Salazar and Ed Perlmutter were down there with the also-rans at 220th and 271st.
Sens. Salazar and Allard ranked 50th and 65th.
Overall, the Colorado delegation ranked 50th out of 55. The rankings included delegations from the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands.
The most powerful state was North Dakota; the least powerful was Idaho.
The Colorado delegation was judged to be substantially less powerful than those of the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the District of Columbia. Among actual states, Colorado led only Nebraska, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Idaho.
Some substance, some self-fulfilling prophecy, some reflection of the fact that we just don’t have a very energetic delegation, especially to the House.
in the Bush Administration. The ego of Bush is massaged, and the Bush family profits, but the country suffers…and they don’t care:
Kyle Sampson has gotten a great deal of publicity this week as the Chief of Staff for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and being a key figure orchestrating the ouster of the US Attorneys. His role in this affair became so toxic that the DoJ reported that he resigned at the beginning of the week. But a funny thing happened on his way out the door. His boss, Abu Gonzales, was fixin’ to find him a new job within the Justice Department. Earlier today, NPR found out that Mr. Sampson was being outfitted with a new office in the legislative section of the environmental section. Here’s a case that shows how highly valued “loyalty” is with the Bushies.
Maher: And finally, new rule: liberals must stop saying President Bush hasn’t asked Americans to sacrifice for the War on Terror. On the contrary, he’s asked us to sacrifice something enormous: Our civil rights.
One of the most classic ways to distract from liability for one crime is to confess to another crime. It acts almost like an alibi “I couldn’t have murdered the victim at 10 AM on April 12th because at 10 AM, I was robbing the bank!” When using this method of false alibi, the criminal usually tries to choose to confess to a crime that either carries significantly less jail time or, better still, a crime he knows the prosecution will have a hard time proving.
So, Libby cops to leaking the NIE, a crime not within Fitzgerald’s mandate. Now, I suppose Fitz could have referred the leaking of the NIE to, to, to -who? Alberto? Scratch that. Hmmmm? Who to refer to?
Well, if there is a conspiracy between Bush and Cheney to lie after the fact and falsely claim that an Insta-De-Classification happened when so such thing ever occurred, the only place to refer a high crime like that to would be????????
Actually, this is for Toesning (sp?)
Over the past few years, you have repeatedly stated that Valerie Plame was “not covert” at the time of her outing because she “had not been stationed abroad within five years” of Robert Novak’s article. In explaining this charge, you insist that Ms. Plame did not fall under the statutory definition of “covert” as defined in the 1982 Intelligence Indentities Protection Act; an act that you helped negotiate the terms of as Chief Counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee. In her opening statement yesterday, Ms. Plame testified under oath that in addition to working in Washington, she “also traveled to foreign countries on secret missions to find vital intelligence.”
It seems your argument is predicated on this crucial distinction; that in order to fall under the statutory definition of “covert,” one would have to have been stationed abroad within five years of the date of disclosure.
I am not a lawyer, but I tracked down the language of the law and it reads as follows:
FindLaw:
(4) The term “covert agent” means –
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an
intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed
Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency –
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member
is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within
the last five years served outside the United States;
I was wondering if you would be willing to explain why Ms. Plame was not “covert” despite her sworn testimony that (a) she was employed by the Central Intelligence Agency, (b) her identity was classified (as was confirmed during yesterday’s hearing), and (c) she had indeed served overseas within the past five years. By the very definition of the law you helped craft, it would appear that she meets every qualification of a “covert” agent.
where are the indictments? Are they forthcoming?
So, if I were a betting man, I think they’re coming.
And hold your breath until all of these new indictments surface?
There was no crime, other tha Wilson printing classified info in a NYT op-ed, and now his wife lying under oath.
She was about as covert as you are.
. . . comes tumbling down except for one hope, that Plame was lying under oath??!!!! Pathetic.
The Libby prosecution took four years….I can hold my breath longer than most….as a cross country athlete I’ve developed a great set of lungs, thank you:-) The Democrats have had subpoena power and oversight (finally) for just a few months, but every tree they’ve looked up has had a cat in it so far. All of the emerging scandals of the most incompetent administration in my lifetime are picking up steam. You can continue to defend unpatriotic behavior of incompetent cronys, you just won’t find me helping to defend them.
I personally will never understand defending liars and incompetency.
You must be using some of your socialist math skills for that one.
PS, still waiting for your email so I can buy you a beer or cup of coffee and you can practice your put-downs.
you’re going to beat up SR after recess is over?
I’m calling him on not having anything other than insults once he’s challenged with substance, and responds with behavior that’s unacceptable among third-graders.
I presume very, very red.
Your “thought” process is a joke. You dittoheads invent a whole new fantasy when the facts don’t fit your world view. Plame was lying under oath? Gimme a fucking break. How would you know unless you knew something other than what Rush, Glen, and all those moral halfwits lie about?
Remember LB, that the CIA asked the Justice Department to investigate this leak….both departments are in the Executive branch and are run by Bush apointees…..
Fitzgerald has said that he couldn’t get to the bottom of the investigation..because Libby lied. and the jury found Libby quilty of that. That is real serious. If there were a deliberate attempt to discredit a civil service employee because of what a family member did…that has serious implications for the integrity of the whole civil service and its ability to function in a non partisan way….
Remember when the Oklahoma city bombing occurred as well as the first
Trade Center bombing as well as the bombings of the American Embassy in Africa….there was a traitorous spy in the FBI…Robert Hassen….we don’t know what he did; what he leaked and how he might have contributed to the execution of the above acts of terror….Now the reason we don’t know is that the FBI is interrogating him in secret….I am not disputing their right of the wisdom of that decision. What I am saying is that there are part of what happened in this country that we don’t know about.
I am highly suspicious of the successful effor to discredit a CIA officer and the consequenses of weaking our ability to do intelligence gathering all over the world. I don’t like that. I don’t like the fact that the White House allowed that to happen for what were political reasons……I don’t like that one gd bit…..That smacks of someone trying to undermine the security of the United States, Lady, in my book…..It stinks to high heaven.
I try not to rush to conclusions about political scandals until the smoke clears. Libby has been found guilty of lying and unless pardoned, he will be paying for that crime. But when I hear the serious charge of “treason” bandied about, I’d like to find out if there is real meat to the allegations or political haymaking. Did anyone “knowingly” out a “covert” CIA agent? I don’t have that answer yet. Sir Robin has told me to be patient, and I think that is a good suggestion.
I found the coverage of Plame’s testimony intriguing though. Unless I was just asleep and missed it, there didn’t seem to be too much media interest in it. A little on the day it occured but I didn’t see anything on it on Saturday and the Sunday morning shows ignored it as well.
Except when you disagree with me. (-:
Today on Fox News Sunday, Brit Hume continued his campaign to smear Valerie Plame Wilson. Previously, he had falsely said that it was “unlikely she was” covert.
Instead of apologizing this morning, he launched a new attack against Plame, claiming that she had lied under oath when she testified on Friday about whether she recommended her husband be sent to Niger to investigate Iraq’s supposed nuclear ambitions.
Hume said Plame’s testimony “flies in the face of the evidence” adduced by the “bipartisan” Senate Intelligence Committee, which said that “she very much did have something to do with it, that she recommended him and that she put it in a memo.”
Plame testified that she never suggested her husband for the Niger trip. “I did not recommend him, I did not suggest him, there was no nepotism involved – I didn’t have the authority,” she said.
Hume’s false claim originated from a statement attached to the Senate Intelligence Committee report on Iraq that was released in 2004. In an addendum to that report, Sens. Pat Roberts (R-KS), Christopher Bond (R-MO), and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) wrote definitively, “The plan to send the former ambassador to Niger was suggested by the former ambassador’s wife, a CIA employee.” The right-wing, including columnist Bob Novak, have taken the statement written by three Republican senators and falsely attributed it as the “unanimous” conclusion of the Senate report.
The three conservative senators based their claim on testimony by a CIA employee who appeared before the Senate Intel Committee. Plame revealed on Friday that the CIA employee later apologized to her “with tears in his eyes” because he said “his words had been twisted and distorted” by the senators. And in fact, the unnamed employee drafted a memo, asking that he be re-interviewed by the Senate to correct the record. His attempts to set the record straight were denied. On Friday, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) asked to retrieve a copy of that memo:
REP. VAN HOLLEN: So, just so I understand, Mr. Chairman, if I could – so, there was a memo written by the [Counterproliferation Division] officer, upon whose alleged testimony the Senate wrote its report that contradicts the conclusions –
MS. PLAME WILSON: Absolutely.
REP. VAN HOLLEN: – contradicts the conclusions from that report.
MS. PLAME WILSON: Yes, sir.
REP. VAN HOLLEN: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this committee should ask for that memo. And it bears directly on the credibility of the Senate report on this very, very important issue, which they’ve attempted to us to discredit Ambassador Wilson’s mission.
REP. WAXMAN: I think the gentleman makes an excellent point, and we will insist on getting that memo.
Oh yes, daylight is the best disinfectant…and there’s so much stench in this administration. With Waxman, we have a big enough shovel to unearth all of it.
“Plame revealed on Friday that the CIA employee later apologized to her “with tears in his eyes” because he said “his words had been twisted and distorted” by the senators.”
The bi-partisan Senate Panel is in on the conspiracy now?
Plame is a disgrace to her country. So’s her husband. I hope they enjoy all that money from the book and movie deal they generated with their folly.
Where’d you cut and paste that one from?
rather than FOX news…you should try it.
The best part of that is that you were quoting a transcript from Fox News. Is that what you meant by “testimony”?
The second best part is that you seem to claim the post as your own, but you’ve ripped it off from a couple of different places – I found this one and this one just by googling “Hume’s false report”.
You have absolutely no credibility.
I will laugh at you more boisterously with each post and empty threat. Thank you for making me feel so secure in my convictions that the far, far, far left (that’s you, Sir Robin, not most folks on this board) is indeed as vacant, hateful, disingenuous, and comically inept as I’d hoped.
I “ripped it off” from ThinkProgress. Laugh while you’re able:-)You and ColDawg:-))))
I noticed you didn’t credit them. Most folks call that plagiarism. Not you, I guess. DO you by chance teach Native American Studies at CU?
Did you think it was funny that you told me I was ignorant for hypothetically watching Fox News as you were…. Quoting Fox news?
Laugh while I’m able? Is that some kind of scary threat?
Plagiarism:
1. the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one’s own original work.
This is public domain stuff. I wasn’t quoting Fox news. I don’t watch Fox. It isn’t news, its propoganda.
But you reprinted someone else’s editorialization and represented it as your own post.
This just gets better every time you post!
You’re a real class act.
You can tie your toes together and march to the enlistment line for the “war” in Iraq.
Sir Robin often (not always) forgets to add the “hat tip” at the end of his posts. I know when he’s quoting because the tone totally changes when it’s something he copied.
Sir Robin, don’t forget your hat tip. Even though no one will sue you for plaigarism (unless you suddenly become a Kos-level influential blogger) it’s just common courtesy.
Now, who wants to join me in a chorus of kum-by-yah…
Hi all;
I forgot to do my weekend music video post yesterday so here it is today. As Sir Robin said last time he was not wild on Russian Music vidoes, here’s a cross-over. It is the Russian group Via Gra but they are doing It’s Raining Men.
And only two weeks left to register and vote. Don’t miss it!
There;s many aspects I like! Need I be specific?:-)
From http://www.pewintern…
“The number of Americans who got most of their information about the 2006 campaign on the internet doubled from the most recent mid-term election in 2002 and rivaled the number from the 2004 presidential election year.
In all, 15% of all American adults say the internet was the primary source for campaign news during the election, up from 7% in the mid-term election of 2002 and close to the 18% of Americans who said they relied on the internet during the presidential campaign cycle in 2004.”
I was under the impression that a significant amount of money for the “war on terror” was being spent on real counter-terrorism measures-diplomatic measures, economic aid development, winning hearts and minds.
It turns out we spend virtually nothing of the sort, and even this year what pittance we used to spend is threatened with elimination. “This is a monumental failing,” a West Point fellow is quoted as saying. No shit, sir, the quote applies to anything Bush does.
We should have learned a long, long time ago blowing everything up rarely works, and usually makes things much worse. It’s no surprise George Bush learned nothing, of course, but at least we should have had someone with brains to fight the war smart at least on some levels-the soft effective stuff that wins hearts and minds.
Our war felons want $100 billion this year, no strings, just to blow up more of our future with no thinking and no intelligent strategy. It does not have to be this way, Speaker Pelosi, it does not.
h/t paradox
We have years of neglect, injustice, fraud and corruption to undo and correct. It will be a wild ride…and the culpable will push back with every weapon available. The people will prevail. The environment will prevail. Justice will prevail.