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
March 27, 2007 03:15 PM UTC

Tuesday Open Thread

  • 80 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

We’re taking the Fifth, too.

Tweet
Share

Comments

80 thoughts on “Tuesday Open Thread”

  1. So Edwards polling numbers will surely go up now with all this glowing media attention.  Anyone care to predict who this will hurt more Hillary or Obama?

      1. and I like Edwards. 

        His only claim to political experience, AFAIK, is one term in the senate.  Even Obama has more (state) experience than that. 

        But, I’ll grant ya, stranger things have happened.

            1. Why do I think what?  He was polling very poorly in NC before he entered the Presidential race in ’03, presumably to raise his profile (it worked).

              Why do I think he’d get crushed?

              I am going to hold off on answering that in detail for a few weeks. I just do.

              He’s having a rough time, and I don’t want to send any negative energy his way right now.  He’s a human (well, a lawyer), after all.

              1. I think he will be fine, Im sending him positive energy so dont worry about that.

                It seems to me that everyone is loathe to actually debate why or why not he will win. I may bit a bit verbose in my posts, but just simply casting aspersions on someone adds nothing. Extrapolate on your reasoning.

                  1. I havent seen monetary reports yet, but I would assume that somebody like Richardson would have a harder time getting over the monetary hump than Edwards. Does anybody know when they come out?

        2. If the founding fathers saw the need to include political experience as a requirement in obtaining the office of the president they would have put it in the constitution.

          I hope, and bet, that Edwards will get the dem nod.

          1. I can’t imagine him getting past Barrack and Hillary, their juggernauts. 

            I’m not dissing him, I like him and would be enthusiastic about his candidacy .  Just can’t see it.

            1. Edwards will not only be the nominee, he will win the general election.

              I know the skeptics will go with conventional wisdom, but I am telling you, Edwards will win.

              Pile on!  I will hear all the reasons that I am crazy and still stick by my prediction.

              Edwards will come out of Iowa strongly and will carry California in the primary.

            2. Edwards is my favorite of the batch that are running, but he really has a tough row to hoe to get past Clinton and Obama.

              Unless something drastic happens to the other two, I don’t see Edwards getting terribly far.

              1. Edwards could remain standing …on Principle. Can someone help me define his negatives?

                His health care plan makes sense, and is a major issue.

                He’s clean on Iraq

                Environmentally-He’s calling for coal to clean up after itself…Why be allowed significant profits on a basic human need, i.e. power, and not have to invest in not killing the rest of us for those profits?

                He genuinal;y fights for the great majority of the people…the poor and the middle class. I like it that he’s a self made man. I’m frankly tired of trust funders, political dynasties, overblown ego’s and the economically entrenched pretending they’ll fight for the great majority.

                I suppose I should save the rest for a diary…

                1. Because he is the most principled conservative. I think he aligns most closely with the religious movement, and has so for a period of time. I may end up eating crow (and paying out), but I like my predictions.

              2. OK, a buck.

                BTW, our Denver Draft Al Gore meetup had another successful drinking, I mean planning session!  We are growing, up to 107 on meetup and some attendees who aren’t yet.  The Denver Hillary group is stalled at 11.

                  2. The word “symposium,” roughly translated, means “a gathering with wine.” Years of graduate seminars would have been so much nicer with a decantor on the table!

                    1. But, from what I hear, its just a bunch of dems talking politics at a bar. In other words, a good time. I cant remember where you said you live but here is a link to all Colorado Drinking liberally locations: http://drinkingliber…

                      Double Daughter is a fun place. Prior to the smoking ban it was a non smoking bar with Beamish on tap. Lansdowne Arms has a great beer selection (Im a beer snob).

      1. You won’t ever catch me saying that Edwards’s announcement hasn’t had political ramifications.

        Some of the shine is wearing off of Obama, and Edwards continues to promote “the right things” to the Progressive/Liberal base.  Obama and Clinton get free press every day from their squabbles and the right-wing noise machine’s obsession with both of them; Edwards has been flying more under the radar, and any exposure at all – and good, decent exposure even moreso – is good for his campaign.  The IA numbers show it, I think.

  2. Anybody see Alberto’s NBC interview?  He didn’t know ANYTHING about the reasons leading to the dismissals but ABSOLUTELY KNEW those reasons were proper?  How? Because HE wouldn’t do anything improper, not that he knew anything about it, mind you.  And this guy is a lawyer!?!  Good luck with that line of explanation at the hearings. 

      1. With entries like the following it’s safe to say this is not a liberal rightie-bashing blog:

        PREMEDITATED MERGER: How leaders are stealthily transforming USA into North American Union”

        Autographed! – Pat Buchanan unleashed on border crisis

        Tom Tancredo: America itself “In Mortal Danger”

        Get Minutemen founder’s new book

        Get special Whistleblower issue: “SECRETS OF THE INVASION”

        “Conquest of Aztlan”: Will Mexicans retake American Southwest?

        Couldn’t get there by clicking on your entry, Aristotle but here is another link:

        http://www.wnd.com/n…

              1. I hope to see them some day. It’s tough country to hang out in waiting for them. Actually, I would like to see the Big Bend Park.

                Is the Presidio – Ojinaga railroad border crossing still in operation?

                I think the lights are an atmospheric reflection of Mexico City. But I have not seen them, so that is speculation.

  3. If Congress doesn’t ask Goodling about her own actions, but rather those of others, can she still plead the 5th?  She hasn’t been questioned in this yet, so she can’t purjure herself… (Unless she wants to argue that she might be brought back in front of the Congress a second time, and wants to ensure that she doesn’t get caught up in an inconsistency between the two appearances.  Hey, it’s a corrupt Republican Administration – anything could happen!)

    1. If Goodling provided Paul McNulty with the wrong information, that would be a crime of causing someone to give false testimony to Congress.  Since almost any question Congress could ask might implicate her in such a crime, she could safely claim her 5th Amendment rights for the entire conversation.

      If that’s what really happened, anyway…

      1. Is Goodling an attorney? At the very least, she has suborned perjury, which means that she would be disbarred. McNulty is skating on thin ice ethically as well.

        Your last statement is the lynch pin of this entire debacle.

        1. McNulty has claimed he was misled during his prior testimony.  That *might* buy him a Get Out Of Jail Free card, if he can produce some evidence.

          Maybe Conyers was feeling generous and left the record open, should anyone “remember” anything.  That might help Mr. McNulty skate by.

          Thursday may prove interesting.

  4. Just what is wrong with firing a bunch of people who serve in politically-appointed jobs in the Executive Branch?

    This could have been completely unjustified, political or whatever, but that’s completely irrelevant.  U.S. Attorneys are part of the executive branch.  Legally it’s the equivalent if the president fired a member of his staff or if the Secretary of State sacked the Ambassador to Fiji.

    1. Although you should try to imagine this whole scenario playing out under Clinton – that Janet Reno fired a bunch of US Attorneys who failed to prosecute politically targeted Republicans – and see if it’s more offensive to you then.

      1. If that indeed can be proven. 

        My point is that this is a fishing expedition.  If they caught someone lying to Congress, it sucks to be that person.  But the underlying “crime” isn’t illegal or abnormal to begin with.

        1. No one disputes that GW had the right to let these people go, Jack.

          It’s that it was done at a time no other president did so in their administrations, and that it appears it was selective based on investigations on REpublicans.

          THAT’S why it matters.  It’s no fishing expedidition, especially with the knowledge since last Friday (the day the adminsitration always releases bad news) that Gonzales participated in a meeting to can these folks on, I think, Nov. 27th.

          They may not tell you those things on Fox.

          1. Really.  Are you capable of discourse without snark? 

            Don’t be ignorant and insulting of your opposition.  It only reflects poorly on you and demeans the process.  My post was nothing if not civil.

            As I noted, this is the legal equivalent of a Secretary of State sacking an ambassador because the ambassador didn’t follow the administration’s policy line. 

            The executive branch has every right to assume that their political appointees will espouse the ideals of the administration.

            If Clinton didn’t like someone, he had every right to get rid of them. 

            This is the most basic of separation of powers, and if the Congress wants to go to the Supreme Court with their threat of subpoenas, they will lose.
             

            1. Then read something like “Clinton …. had every right to get rid off”, and I”m once again flabbergasted. 

              So, because Clinton COULD have, but didn’t, GW is in the clear?  This is certainly a new twist on “It’s Clinton’s fault.”

              Let me be more condescending, because I don’t think you “get it”, Jack.

              The Justice Department, while mostly being politcal appointmentees, is expected to deal with the issues in a non-partisan, even handed manner.  I know, I know, good luck.  But for the most part it has worked for 200+ years.  It is the department that if you, Jack Shaftoe, had a federal legal complaint, should be able to get fair treatment.  It is OUR justice department.

              When good attorneys getting good reviews are summarily dismissed, with all or most seem to be fitting a pattern of investigating corruption, it stinks.

              1. It might stink.  It’s still the right of the executive to hire and fire those appointees who work at his pleasure.

                We’re not talking about whether or not you agree with the firings.  It’s completely irrelevant.  The Congress is trying to drag the executive branch in for unconstitutional hearings based on something that they don’t like, not something that the executive branch did that was in any way illegal.  And based on the fact that the Congress doesn’t like it, they’ve embarked on a fishing expedition.

            2. They have precedent on their side. Bucking precedent is a dangerous gambit, especially in regards to this issue. The executive does not have the right to lie to the legislature. And the women who says she will take the 5th does not have that right. You can only take the 5th when you would incriminate yourself, not the administration.

    2. In the DOJ they are required by the constitution and by statue to fairly enforce the laws of this country. So if people are removed for doing that and replaced with people who will not do that – then yes this is grounds for impeachment.

      Remember, we do not elect a dictator, we elect an executive who is constrained by the law. At least that’s how it’s supposed to work.

      – dave

      1. They are political appointees and serve at the pleasure of the president.  He can fire them for being Democrats, just as Democrat presidents fire Republicans for being Republicans.

        1. But given the timing (this wasn’t a newly elected W cleaning Clinton’s house kind of sweep, which is absolutely normal), the lying (if it’s alright, why didn’t they just tell the truth) and the allegations that they were told to go after Dem targets and they refused, do you believe that that’s all that there is to this?

            2. But your analysis fails to mention the other parts of the TPM analysis: Lam was under fire by Congressman Issa a year before the list appeared (making it a political firing), and that the list originally produced was only marginally similar to the final list (and we don’t know how many attorneys were on that list…).

              The decision wasn’t made until November 2006, so while the original consideration might have had other origins, the final decision certainly could have been influenced by the Cunningham investigation.

              Given what we know about the other firings, that is not only a possibility, but also a decent probability.  Consider the cases of McKay in Washington and Iglesias in New Mexico.  These two firings alone, with their political interference allegations, should be enough to warrant a complete investigation.

              This is only the surface, my friend, and the lying is only the beginning.  There are some hints in the DoJ email dumps that the White House is operating outside the boundaries of legality by using non-governmental servers in making these decisions.

    3. Some aspects of our system rely on custom, and when that custom is broken, flaws in the system threaten to wreak serious havoc. The two term limit on the presidency was a very strongly held custom until FDR, and once the force of custom was destroyed, Congress decided to make it law.

      The problem is that if the executive branch can’t be trusted to resist the urge to use its “right” to fire prosecutors for political reasons, thus threatening to turn the justice department into a political weapon at the disposal of the executive, we have a very serious problem! Violating the custom seriously diminishes its effectivenes. We may need to put up a fire-wall between boss and employees, to prevent this from becoming the norm instead of (hopefully!) the exception.

      Though we are still talking about a very important difference in degree, when you think about it, having U.S. Attorneys who keep their jobs by prosecuting who the president wants to prosecute and not prosecuting who the president doesn’t want to prosecute really has something horribly in common with the Gestapo. I don’t think any of us want to open (any further than it already has been opened) that can of worms.

    1. if you aren’t familiar with Cribs, it’s an MTV show where youngish celebs (usually rock or rap musicians, pro athletes, and up and coming but not yet A list actors) show off their homes and belongings. Naturally they usually have big houses with pools, large kitchens where nobody cooks, snazzy home theater systems, and the like.

  6. I heard that his canceer has mestastized. 

    Why no outrage from Lim-bloat?  After all, Tony has a long career ahead of him and he might be able to use his illness for a sympathetic job application. 

    Gecko and all you righties who insisted that you were inside John Edwards brain and knew why theye did what they did?

    My sympathies for both individuals and families.  A pox on those who believe there are ulterior motives.

    1. You’re kidding right?

      Tony Snow, WH spokesman and John Edwards, US Presidential candidate….

      Why is it so hard for people to believe that the Edwards family must have discussed, planned and thought about how to deal with their announcement at a national press conference and then again on 60 minutes? 

      It doesn’t take away from Edwards’ character if you don’t want it to, but puhleese, can we agree that there were political considerations involved on whether they would announce?

      1. When you’re running for President, every decision you make involves political considerations.  Not.

        Wouldn’t it be nice to live in a world – for just a little while – where you believed that the only consideration necessary in a decision was the consideration of “what’s the right thing to do”?

        A diarist posted on Daily Kos the other day about his/her research into the first months of Edwards’s Senate career.  Sure, they thought – he talked a good game in the campaign, and he sponsored some decent bills right before he started his ’04 bid – but what did he do when no-one was really looking, right after his election?  Turns out, he co-sponsored legislation like Fragile X cure research funding, and privacy enhancement laws, and consumer protection laws, and…  You get the point.

        Sometimes an announcement is just an announcement.  If there were any political considerations involved, I’d pin them solidly on Elizabeth Edwards’s desire to bring more attention to cancer issues, not on John Edwards’s Presidential ambitions.

        1. then I’ve got a bridge in Broklyn I’d like to sell you.  The difference with TS is he is not running for anything and he has not gone out of his way to bring media attention to himself.  The Edwardes are milking the cancer thing for all they can.

          1. I wish Tony the best of health, though I would also cheerfully wish that he didn’t have to sit up in front of the Press Corps and lie, dodge, and propagandize every day.

            The Edwards’s have made – to my knowledge – one press conference and one interview.  Both I think showed very clearly what they were made of, and it wasn’t cheap political parlor tricks.

            I don’t have a lot of experience with cancer victims, but I do have experience with my father, who suffered multiple amputations from Diabetes.  The instincts, I think, are the same.  Don’t give up; prove you’re not worthless; prove that your life isn’t over; do something so that others don’t have to go through what you are going through.  My mother spent a considerable amount of time helping my father, but she didn’t drop out of life, and neither did he.  They continued volunteering their time with Habitat for Humanity down in Homestead, FL; they continued their leadership roles and choir in the church; they didn’t stop going on vacations, even though the Diabetes invariably struck hardest when my father relaxed…  And they became active in an amputee help group; they tried to help other people through their amputations, to show them just how much you could still do after you lost a limb.  If my mother had been famous, she wouldn’t have dropped everything – my father would have had none of that.

            So I respect what John and Elizabeth Edwards have done, and the choice that they – between the two of them – have made.  Personally, I think you and others are milking the Edwards’s situation for more than the Edwards’s themselves.

          2. Didnt you say that your daughter has a class with a member of his staff? And that she might get to meet him or be on stage with him or something along those lines?

            Your distaste for Edwards, and your need to ride this story is bordering on the obsessive. My question is this, was your daughter snubbed in some way?

          3. No, Tony isn’t running for office, but if he were to live, he still has a career.  And I”m sure he would love to “advance” in his career, especially after GW is impeached….

            I know the parallel isn’t exact, but the deafening silence now on the right is my point.

            1. Sometimes posts are so far off the mark that responding seems futile.  Then there is response fatigue, especially regarding the current administration. If I wanted to do battle on national politics, I’d quit my job and jump into Daily Kos. In this case, the Tony Snow/John Edwards comparison is apples and oranges and if not for your challenging last sentence, I would have ignored it, just cuz I like you and want to pick my battles:)

              1. the Tony Snow story does illustrate the fact that health concerns of public officials and the people close to public officials are inevitably news stories, are inevitably discussed by the officials involved, and that the fact of it being discussed -or even the choice between a press release or a press conference- doesn’t provide any indication of the motivation for it being discussed, or for the choice of venue. Sure, some venues would be so crass that criticisms would be warranted, but a simple press conference doesn’t rise to that level.

                As far as Elizabeth Edwards’ situation goes, the more I think about it, the more apparent it becomes to me that a mere press release, as some here have suggested was the obvious and tasteful choice, would not have sufficed. More, and more justified, criticism would have flowed concerning the attempt to underplay it, to sweep something that important under the rug. They had no real choice but to hold a press conference.

                I may be wrong, but I’m neither stupid nor dishonest, so, in a sense, the mere fact of my disagreement is a sound refutation to the arguments that it’s *obvious* that the press conference was an example of crass and cynical politics. It ain’t obvious to *me*!

                1. Good people, faced with a choices, can disagree.  There may be no right or wrong answer.  How post-modern, see previous posts on that topic!

                  1. Postmodernists, academic Marxists, and New Agers have almost succeeded in turning this old hippy into a conservative reactionary. Almost. 🙂

                    2. When teaching both U.S. and World History, I used to love to point out this reversal of sovereignty (really begun in England). It’s a fascinating historical event!

                2. True true. There is no way the Edwards could have issued a release and went about the campaign as if nothing happened. The press would have been all over them anyway.  And they had to know people would question the continuation of the campaign given the dire circumstances, so they probably decided to frame the message themselves, instead of letting others do it.  No matter how they chose to handle it, there would have been critics and supporters because he is running for President.  That is what makes it different from any one else in the public eye making such an announcement.

    1. That seems to be the political maneuvering behind this bill. Have the Democrats found…. or refound their maneuvering/political abilities?

      I’d like to take the game to set match. Another 10 Democratic Senators and 8-9 more Democratic Congress people would suit me just fine.

    2. Now, 50-48-2 isn’t a huge majority, but it’s more than necessary to overcome the Cheney Factor…

      Now Bush has to make a decision: veto a bill that not only provides him the money to continue his war but also provides funds for veterans – and accept the conditions – or let it pass into law and try to tell the Democrats what to kiss on the actual withdrawal decision.

      (BTW, is “withdrawl” a description of Southerners? 😉

      1. I expected that the vote would have gone 50 to 48 in the other direction!  Obviously, Tim Johnson was one of the two Senators not voting.  Who was the other one?

        1. From dKos:  (a vote FOR is a vote to remove the withdrawal language; a vote AGAINST is a vote for withdrawal)

          Democrats voting for amendment (or the wrong way):
          Mark Pryor (AR)

          Independents voting for it:
          Joe Lieberman (CT)

          Republicans voting against it:

          Chuck Hagel (NE)
          Gordon Smith (OR)

          Not voting:

          Mike Enzi (R-WY)
          Tim Johnson (D-SD)

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

157 readers online now

Newsletter

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