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%
April 28, 2007 04:27 PM UTC
85 Comments
Ninnying fatuous self-important morons who demand that everyone else make sacrifices in the name of mother earth while they zoom around in CO2 belching private jets and lavish themselves in heated swimming pools are hypocrites but perhaps we should be grateful that their frothing absurdities are causing the man-made global warming cult to lose whatever credibility it has left.
http://www.infowars….
On the surface, scandulous. But once you plug your brain in, it makes perfect sense. Clinton had to make a vote in the Senate late, get to the debate, and be back in DC by the early AM. So……..how many commercial flights into Orangeburg are there? Are there any, in fact?
Further, a candidate can spend the flight time doing work with staff. That would be impossible on a commercial flight, there would be no privacy. With the charter jet, there is no time going through security, waiting for the flight to leave, etc.
Makes perfect sense to me.
Cuts to end Global Warming are good in theory, but don’t work real well in the civilized, modern world?
We right-wingers have been saying that for years.
“It will be difficult to minimize impact or to offset it, so let’s just give up now and enjoy our Mai Tai’s as the water laps at our feet.”
Is that a fair summary?
Of course, if we had bullet trains like more advanced nations, Hillary and her team could have reserved a private space and used that, instead.
No one said it would be easy, especially during the transition years.
PS, No, you right wingers haven’t been saying that for years, at least more than about two. While Gore’s movie may be recent, he has been studying this for decades as a private citizen.
We actually have reasons for believing what we believe – and the chief argument against Global Warming legislation in general (and Kyoto in particular) has been that it puts too high a price on the motor of civilization, when it’s civilization itself that will save the environment. Of course, on top of that is an inherent skepticism of the environmental religion posing as “science,” but the primary concrete argument is the economic one.
And that’s been the case since at least the jackassery known as Kyoto, and before that. Though you wouldn’t know that, because you tend to paint those with whom you disagree in single-tone ad hominem-based prejudice, rather than actually paying attention to the arguments and reasoning.
Also, I’m sure as soon as the government subsidizes its first bullet train, it’ll run direct from Washington, DC to Orangeburg, SC.
Or maybe it doesn’t already run there because air travel is cheaper and easier than putting up with all of the *private property* they’d have to buy/steal via eminent domain from citizens and then the environmental regulations to industrialize the railway. (Hell, I bet if all of the Senators got one chartered 737 for them and their staffs, it would have been significantly cheaper in a carbon sense than all of the trees you’d have to cut down to run railways down the eastern seabord)
Bullet trains. Jeezum crow.
Every time there is a major move toward new technologies, new industries along with quantities of good jobs are created. If we here in the US sieze the initiative and put ourselves on the cutting edge, we can not only help slow global warming and protect the environment. We can also reverse the loss of well paying jobs for ordinary Americans as our old industrial and manufacturing jobs are shipped out and replaced with low paying service sector jobs.
We can’t train and educate everyone to be a doctor, lawyer, or rocket scientist. Heck, techies in computer and medical fields, tax preparers and all sorts of well educated, well trained Americans are seeing their jobs outsourced to places like India, so it’s not as if this is just a threat to blue collar types. And we DO need good blue collar jobs, too, and not just those tied to finite resources. We may argue about when those resources are going away but we know that they definitely ARE going away.
We will always need lots of solid jobs for average Americans to maintain the broad middle class that is our strength. We also need a healthy environment and a promising future for our children and grandchildren. New green, renewable solutions will create a whole new economic engine. That’s a win/win, not a sacrifice.
Industries always worry when new environmental regulations are applied, but as long as they apply to everyone, they are more likely to spark new improvements in technology and even cost savings, rather than the costs and stifling of innovation that was feared.
And that is, are all subject to the same rules and restrictions?
To sell a car in America, a company MUST comply. They cannot get around the regulations.
But examples of circumventing the alleged or hoped for equality are everywhere: Third world nations that essentially have no regard for labor laws or the environment are the obvious loopholes. I would offer that the reason gun control “doesn’t work” is because of the patchwork of state laws and ineffective implementation.
In countries that got fed up with gun homicides, they passed federal laws, no driving across the state line. And, not surprisingly, they have worked well.
Where American business really cuts its nose to spite its face is trying to reduce our system to third world instead of insisting that if a widget is going to show up at our docks made in Thailand, that it was done so with laws, enforced, such as we have here to protect workers and then environment.
evolutionary ecology and environmental econommics, I can tell you, that no matter how many times you chant things like “religion posing as science,” the actual scientists who go to the actual trouble of doing actual research are overwhelmingly in disagreement with you. So from where do you get the justification for these sage proclamations? From the same place your head is obviously lodged.
And I can’t apologize for the ad hominem, because this isn’t a logical debate. What single shred of evidence have you cited to support the position you claim is the opposite of “religion posing as science?” In numerous posts, I’ve cited numerous documented empirical facts: The *measured* (not just measurable) receding of the polar ice-caps, the *measured* (not just measurable) rise in temperature of the oceans’ waters. You obviously have no idea what science is: It is the forming of the most efficient and probable explanations for *measured* phenomena. “Global warming” is the measured phenomena (not even the theoretical framing of it): It’s simply a fact, and has been for nearly 200 years (though we didn’t measure it until recently). If you want to debate the theorized cause, that human activity is responsible for this rise in temperature, then do so, with logical arguments and empirical evidence. But do you know anything about the effects of carbon emissions, or how deforestation reduces the amount of carbon sequestration and releases more carbon into the atmosphere? For God’s sake! If you’re going to be so adamant about something, at least learn a little about it!
to be a Micronesian and lose your atoll, or an Inuit and find the melting permafrost swallowing your village.
In fifty years, Yokel and his friends will be looked at through the harsh lens of history as buffoons.
The Global Circulation Models that are being trumpeted as the “settled science” on global warming decades in the future contain considerable reliance on the Navier-Stokes equations. These partial differential equations are known to model the flow of fluids. Unfortunately, except for special cases, they are presently unsolvable. One of the special cases in which they are solvable is for non-turbulent flow. Vortices in the atmosphere are extremely turbulent-hence the Navier Stokes equations do not work (take calculator, enter 1, divide by zero,=?) Some special numerical techniques are necessary to make these equations converge. The turbulence of a fluid flow is often described by its Reynold’s Number-which is a ratio of the flow’s velocity to its viscosity. The more viscous a fluid is, the faster it can move and remain non-turbulent (and solvable by Navier-Stokes.) The numerical technique used in every one of the Global Circulation Model is to assume the viscosity of the air at the edge of the vortices is much thicker – like 100,000 times thicker- than it actually is. Such an approach makes the numbers work, and was pioneered by aerospace engineers modeling turbulent flows 40 years ago. It provides an acceptable result for turbine blade flow, but I (and others) question whether it is reasonable to introduce a considerable friction into a global circulation model, and then run it for decades, and deny that the friction has any thermal effect, or has a knowable thermal effect-particularly when the model attempts to mimic the flux of energy through the atmosphere. One of the frequent discussions in support of the GCM school is that once computers get bigger and faster and have a finer resolution, the models will get better and better. This is 180 degrees wrong-a finer model resolution will only exacerbate the Navier-Stokes turbulence instabilities-with a vengeance.
Most of the scientifically educated folks that I work with are more than a touch skeptical of the science of global warming. Among these, there are some who believe we should take preemptive action; but I would say they fall in the “just in case” camp, not the “Permafrost is melting” camp. I believe there is a million dollar prize awaiting the person who solves the Navier-Stokes equations. I wonder why this inconvenient truth was left out of the movie. Sadly, Poli Sci is sexier than DiffyQ.
Thank you for making me laugh out loud this morning Hardrockminer!
You remembered this from a class you took? Damn, I couldn’t even recount photosynthesis without a refresher course. Thanks for the post, fascinating!
Even as a kid watching camp fire smoke, I was fascinated by the fact that you couldn’t tell what the smoke was going to do for more than a second or so into the future. Now people make a living studying chaos! Wow, I missed the boat!
I’ve posted before my simplistic analysis: 1) is GW hapening? A: Obviously. Short term, long term, natural or unnatural processes, it’s happening. So, 2) Do we sit with our thumbs up our asses and watch the world change in ways we can barely imagine, or do we slow this change? For me, the answer is “Yes.” I realize that part of that response is predicated on the greenhouse gas theories. If those theories are wrong, we can’t do anything, I guess.
FULL DISCLOSURE: I have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. The half century family home on Whitaker Bayou, Florida sits 5 feet above sea level…..shit, 4’11″….4′
I’m trying to understand your point here, but it’s not clear. You seem to be saying two things.
1. The Navier-Stokes equations are unsolvable in closed form. This is true, but ultimately irrelevant. The equations are unsolvable in closed form, but they are solvable numerically; in fact, it’s rather routine to do so.
2. The Navier-Stokes equations are numerically unstable in some conditions. This is also somewhat true (you greatly exaggerate the conditions under which instabilities develop; turbulent flow is modeled all the time), and only slightly relevant. The techniques for solving the equations are very well-established and have a long track-record of producing good results, INCLUDING a track record in exactly these models of climate that you criticize.
If you like, I suppose you can sit about and demand perfect, irrefutable proof; and you can claim your right to ignore the preponderance of evidence for ideological reasons until then. In fact, that seems to be the standard mode of operation for a large part of the political world. Rational people, though, act on the best evidence available to them. In this case, we have verified and repeatable observations confirming that a phenomenon is taking place, and a pretty damn good theoretical picture of why. That theory is agreed upon by the vast majority of scientific investigation. One wonders what more we could want before starting to address the matter.
cut through it a bit: Finding a technical flow in a dynamical systems model based on the limitations of mathematical applications to real-world systems does not discredit the model, but rather only points out the limitations of science in general. Once again, getting back to the point: according to the best information available, using the best analyses available, those who *actually study* global climate change overwhelmingly have concluded that global warming is a reality, and that it is augmented if not primarily caused by human activity. This scientific consensus has been endorsed by the United Nations, whose own panel of scientists have reviewed the literature and have come to the dramatic conclusion that Global Warming is a fact, and that it is produced primarily by human activity! If you want to argue that they are wrong based on the unsolvability of the Navier Stokes equations, publish an article, submit it for peer review, and change the consensus. But I’ve seen this trick-of-the-trade before, many, many times: Punching holes in academic arguments isn’t the same as providing a superior analysis, and it isn’t the same as discrediting the currently most widely accepted analysis. I’m both relieved and discouraged to see that it’s not a trick only social scientists stoop to.
. . . that human activity has had and will continue to have an “adverse” effect on the environment (if for only no other reason than that I don’t live in a vacuum –not because I’ve taken a class in computational fluid dynamics) but, I would suggest to you that many or all of those, who *actually study* global climate change, do so out of personal motivations and convictions that cannot be measured empirically. Consequently, the results of their purported analysis are highly vulnerable to suspicions of confirmatory bias.
their data is. That’s what peer review is all about. Look for errors in methodology and accuracy.
You know, when we have over 1000 peer reviewed published research pieces, I’m inclined to say, “Hmmmm…they might be onto something here.”
Almost all of the “ain’t no global warming” scientists are on the take of Big Oil or have just plain and simple shitty work.
Not long ago, many were saying that warming wasn’t happening. Now, most agree that it is, but what are the various causes? When the Atlantic is lappying at Rush’s Palm Beach Estate, he might agree. Or not.
I don’t dispute the basis upon which you base your beliefs but, I’m reluctant to adopt any firm conclusions, yet. For example, I know one of the guys who’s in (or was in) the top ten blogs on TownHall.com and, every time I run into him and global warming comes up, he starts vehemently inundating me with all these alleged studies, reports, facts, inter alia that global warming (as attributable to human activity) is farcical and that the planet is colder now than it was x-hundred years ago and that the planet always goes through cycles of warming and cooling, blah, blah, blah. The point is, both sides of the argument are very passionate about and, just as you initially were suspicious of me because of my passion on certain topics, I’ve become quite suspicious of both sides on this issue because of the rhetoric (which is quite measurable, thank you!)
First, both sides of the arguments about whether the moon landing or Holocaust occured are passionate: That doesn’t put both sides of those arguments on equal footing. People passionately argue weak positions all the time.
Second, you’re right about the self-selection bias to an extent, but perhaps not as great an extent as you think. Most people who study global climate change did not study specifically to study global climate change: They studied fields that turned out to be relevant to that phenomenon.
The last point I wanted to make about self-selection is that all scientists self-select their field of study: That does not discredit quantum mechanics, relativity, or string theory any more (or less) than it discredits global warming. There are political elements to the scientific process (see Thomas Kuhn’s classic “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”), but they do not eliminate the value of scientific theory, or the value of how one theory gains dominance, they only serve to remind us that all human activity is flawed. I do not use that knowledge to label scientific theory -or the current consensus about a particular phenomenon- arbitrary. That would be a mistake. It is also a mistake to replace an analysis that has a far better chance of being correct than do its competitors (i.e., the dominant analysis among scientists researching the phenomenon in question), and argue against it on the basis of there being people who disagree with it, or on the basis of my own less expert analysis.
As for the guy who passionately argued about the cooling trend of the Earth over a longer time frame: We are not talking about a longer time frame, but rather a shorter one. No one disputes that the Earth has its own cycles of warming and cooling. The point is that if we create a dramatic mini-cycle which causes changes rapid enough to disrupt both natural and human systems in ways which might crash those systems, that is something of great relevance to our future welfare. Even such an accelerated climate change were due to natural causes, it would be a matter of appropriate concern for us, though even more difficult to address. The fact that it is due to human behavior is relevant because it points to obvious measures we can take to slow down the changes.
And I sort of blew over “I’ve taken a class in computational fluid dynamics.” So, you’re not only challenging the current scientific consensus, but you’re doing so on the basis of having “taken a class?”
Look, intelligence isn’t about claiming to know and understand everything: It’s about knowing how to assess those aspects of issues that require only an analytical mind and no expertise, how to mobilize your own particular areas of expertise, and how to defer to which authorities to what extent on those aspects that involve expertise beyond the scope. Analyzing these kinds of issues requires a combination of intelligence, humility, and reliance on a collective genius in which we each, even if among the group of foremost experts on the matter, comprise just one small contributing mind. Being conversant in the language of fluid dynamics doesn’t change that.
I also believe that the role of CO2 in the current hysteria is vastly overstated, and that pretending to understand the machinations of one of the most complex systems in the universe is hubris. Take a look at some white water in the Platte River. Think you can predict the flow in three dimensions? Think anyone can? Now, substitute air for the water, and include the effects of changing humidity, cloud formation,(just how does a cloud form) dust, CO2, sublimation of ice caps, land use changes, water cycle changes (i.e. irrigation), and expand the scope of the flow to the entire globe and try to predict the state of the flow in 50 or 100 years. Is it an initial value or boundary value problem. Deterministic modeling of chaotic systems is not at all settled science. Mr. Lorenz hypothesized that it is impossible-and he has never been disproven.
There is no question that humans have a big influence on climate. I object to the misappropriation of the scientific method to support an energy agenda that I don’t believe will result in substantial positive influence on the climate. Anyone care to wager which will happen first-Key West submerging, or Chernobyl parts 2, 3 and 4. Which is a greater threat to humanity? Though I must say, it’s amusing to watch the “Split Wood, not Atoms” crowd not knowing whether to shit or go blind over the now more palatable fission process.
Reliance on an imperfect techocratic class for unbiased truth is what got us Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island, the Challenger explosion, New Orleans Levies, a clogged I-70 mountain corridor and on and on. Complex problems do not have simple solutions. Do not rely on the people building the models to tell you the models do not suck.
“Reliance on an imperfect techocratic class for unbiased truth is what got us Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island, the Challenger explosion, New Orleans Levies, a clogged I-70 mountain corridor and on and on.”
No, all those things were the result of business and/or bureaucrat types cutting corners to save money and make projects come in on schedule.
The rest of the conversation is too technical for me to try to get in on, but I couldn’t let that one go.
Thank you Ari. I was hoping I wasn’t the only one reading with a furrowed brow on this line.
Exchanges like these make me feel better about being concerned about global warming while at the same time skeptical about some of the more alarmist predictions.
when the stakes are this high. “Panic” over “exaggerated predictions” will only result in an improved inclusion of environmental concerns in our social and economic institutions, something which will almost certainly be of great value in the centuries to come, even if “Global Warming” turns out to be a huge miscalculation. Failing to take fairly dramatic action, however, if the calculations are roughly accurate, would impose enourmous, perhaps catastrophic costs on humanity. The choice is a no-brainer.
People are often lulled into a false sense of security due to the limited experiences of short historical time-spans. Americans forget that rich nations fall. Humans forget that species evolve in ways which causes their own extinction. It’s an old story. The evolution of our big brains has been an asset, but may turn into a liability as far as prolongued species survival goes (due to the combination of collective action and time horizon problems which cause robust productive activity to export equally robust destructive costs onto broader publics and into the future). The “shadow evolution” caused by those big brains, that of human history in the social institutional sense, may similarly sow the seeds of our own demise. The point isn’t that it’s a shame we didn’t remain apes in the savanna, or that we should somehow try to regress to that state again, but rather that we shouldn’t be so non-challant about the challenges that both naturally exist and that we ourselves have created regarding our continued survival as a species, or regarding our continued ability to live prosperous lives. Examining the long sweep of history, both human and natural, and applying the logic of how the underlying dynamics of those histories operate, there is plenty of reason to believe that imminent disaster is a real possibility at any given moment in time, and that the industrial revolution, by virtue of its very robustness, should awaken our concern about the costs we keep exporting into the future. The costs can, and very well may, come crashing down upon us, and while the universe might not shed a tear over the loss, I’m geo-centric enough to think it would be a shame.
to follow the exchange between two knowledgeable people. Naturally I find Steven more convincing, but that’s just because I think questions about how fast it’s happening is beside the larger point that it is happening.
Wonder if Another Skeptic will weigh in?
utilizes trading of carbon emission rights to reduce carbon emissions, which is the most economically sensitive approach: It identifies the goal, and let’s the market achieve it. The only approach that does less to attack “th motor of civilization” is to ignore environmental challenges completely, which, it really doesn’t take a genius to know at this point, would certainly not be in civilization’s best interest.
Technology will save us, but a bullet train is a hare brained idea?
But the most contridictory argument that I keep seeing floated is the cost of slowing or stopping global warming. Compared to entire disruptions of business, agriculture, geography? A mere pittance. Even your employer, the DoD, now considers GW to be a significant threat to stability.
Tell it to the Japanese, the French, and the Germans who will be oh so happy to sell us their technologies when we come crawling. Just like the hybrid car technologies.
Air travel is logical over long distances, but not the regional, which is where rapid rail shines. The math is in, dude, about energy used on rail vs. planes vs. unicycles.
America used to lead the world in technology, now, outside of some computer related fields, we follow.
I agree that Kyoto is highly flawed. However, I also say that LETS TRY SOMETHING INSTEAD OF STANDING AROUND HOPING FOR RAIN.
Of course, we could add a lane or two to I-25……
but I have to point out that you’ll need to rely on more than tired talking points if you’re going to prevail in this debate.
because this really is pathetic. If this is biggest negative you can come up with your party is in serious trouble if not on the verge of extinction.
I find it humorous, remember when Bill Clinton was hit for using Air Force One to campaign in, but once GW did it in 2004 the republic party found no problem it, let alone allowing denny hastert his own jet but once a woman was elected speaker they hit her with using the same one.
The hypocrits will be looking in the mirror in 2008 as the vote for a losing ticket and then ask themselves “why?” couldn’t they just be honest with the american people let along themselves.
Let’s bring this conversaton back to Colorado. It’s not funny but rather sad how dellusional the colorado republic party has become.
Electing politicians like this http://www.rockymoun… only reinforces the public perception of republican lunacy. If you want Kevin Lundber and Ted Harvey to be the face of the “new” republic party who are in denial of reality, so be it.
We also have an AG who would rathe “play” politics than work for the citizens of this state as demonstrated by his record of protecting the wrong doings of republic party candidtes (also could be called a “cover-up”) much like Alberto Gonzales. http://www.rockymoun…
And we also have a Secretary of State who surpassed the voter of this state and gave himself a blank chank for billions of taxpayer money. http://www.rockymoun… And he wants to claim to protect those very people.
With the likes of DICK wadhams at the helm of the republic party in Colorado we are going to see the slime, filth and digusting politics as experienced in DC. The citizens of Colorado will see through the guise of negative and igrnorant campaign tactics that will be displayed in 2008. http://www.thefreeli…
As the colorado republic scandals grow they will tell the voters what to fear, besides for their corruption of course, which may lead to a base turnout but will ultimately harm their chances for ever regaining trust with the people. It’s sad to see such tactics, but it’s worse to believe it. I hope, and I honestly mean this, that the republic party learns from their mistakes because if they do not they are doomed to repeat them (and repeating the same thing and believing a different outcome is called insanity).
you, too, might be the victim of ad hominum attacks here. (Shhh…don’t tell them what “ad hominum” means.)
“With hominy?”
I can take it. What bothers me is the direction the righties are going. I once supported a few righties (It’s true) but in light of the mess they have created and the will to continue stubborningly down that same path, is what drives so many moderates away from them.
And to add insult to injury we have republican candidates like Romney who claim catching a man who was responsible for killing over 3,000 American, “not important”
http://www.sfgate.co…
but on the other hand the republican candidates another 9/11 will not happen on their watch http://www.washingto…
and another who wants “stay the course” in the Iraq since it’s going just swimmingly
http://www.salon.com…
The republicans have no clue of what’s going on anymore. They have left reality.
I’ve vented for the weekend. It’s time to go and enjoy this wonderful weather.
You mean like someone calling you a Nazi? Yep, it’s only all them damn Republicans who dare steep to that.
If I use the term, it is because the person in question is exhibiting behaviors like the late departed Third Reich. Authoritarianism, use of propaganda, the business-state partnership.
If these types of elements aren’t part of the person in question, I won’t use “Nazi.”
I admit that such comparisons does not infer membership in the party.
for the last three weeks since I started contributing (if we can call it that) to these discussions, I’ve been saying that politics and lawyering are inseparable.
I love being a ‘republic.’ It’so..so…so noble and dignified!
Anyway, so, um, you think that anybody will give a damn about your little pedantry above? The scandal mongers on the left will monger away on even the most insignificant stuff like Coffman’s blank checks. But people just don’t care. They don’t. They care about the issues and on the issues you guys are just wrong. Maybe you could win on gay pedophile scandals last year, but next year we’re all out of gay pedophiles and you’re going to have to start talking on the issues. But since you’re wrong on all of ’em it’s gonna come down to how stupid is the GOP.
I mean, you know the formula, don’t you? Here, let me show you…
Stupid GOP x 2 < Wrong, dangerous Democrats
BUT…
Stupid GOP > Wrong, dangerous Democrats.
Last year the GOP was soooo stupid they got beat. But Dick Wadhams will whip ’em into shape enough they can beat the wrong Democrats. I promise.
“You” keep supplying “us” with all the reasons the electorate will vote Democratic. They are fed up with the hypocrisy, the hatred, the false issues that the R’s have been serving up for years. Outside of Fred PHelps, Gecko, and a few others, most of the electorate doesn’t care about one’s sexual orientation.
And, it is ALWAYS the Republican politicians and their friends who are caught in the Port-O-Let….
Check back in November 08 to see how your crystal ball is working. The pendulum is swinging leftward and it is picking up speed.
Don’t bet on that.
that’s because there aren’t all that many gay pedophiles compared to the number straight pedophiles.
This latest Dr. D entry is the stupidest thing I have ever seen on this blog. Now I’m not attacking him personally. I’m speaking only of the studidity level of this latest post which is > than anything even Dr D has ever posted x about a zillion. So I give up. Never again will I dignify one of Dr. D’s posts with a reply. It’s a < pointless exercise.
I see I spelled stupidity, studidity. Well, it’s late, I’m tired and I know what I meant!
discount what he posts…he is, I presume, padding his resume or doing test runs for a rw think tank….give the poor kid a break…he has a family to support…a nation to convert….for fun and profit………
Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant: “(2) Whoever uses physical force or the threat of physical force against any person, or attempts to do so, with intent to-(A) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” (U.S. Code Title 18 Part 1 Ch/ 73 В§ 1512).
Conspiracy Against Rights: “If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same…They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned ” (U.S. Code Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 13 В§ 241)
Federally Protected Activities b) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with-(1) any… or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from-(B) participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by the United States;…or participating lawfully in speech-shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned…” (U.S. Code Title 18, Part 1 Chapter 13 В§ 245)
Solicitation to commit a crime of violence: “Whoever, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force …against the person of another in violation of the laws of the United States, and under circumstances strongly corroborative of that intent, solicits, commands, induces, or otherwise endeavors to persuade such other person to engage in such conduct, shall be imprisoned….” (U.S.Code Title 18 Part 1 Ch 19 В§ 373)
Extortion by officers or employees of the United States: “Whoever, being an officer, or employee of the United States or any department or agency thereof, or representing himself to be or assuming to act as such, under color or pretense of office or employment commits or attempts an act of extortion, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years.” (U.S.Code Title 18 Part 1 Ch 41 В§ 872)
“Acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority, provided that in order for unlawful acts to be done under “color of any law”, the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcment officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council Persons, Judges…etc…persons who are bound by laws, statutes, ordinances, or customs. Punishment varies from a fine…threatened use of a dangerous weapon…kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years ” (FBI Civil Rights Section Web site U.S.C. Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 13 Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law)
“Mailing threatening communications: `Whoever, with intent to extort from any person any money or other thing of value, so deposits, or causes to be delivered, as aforesaid, any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of the addressee or of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years,” U.S.Code TITLE 18 P 1 CH 41 В§ 876.
“Threatening Prosecution a) A lawyer shall not threaten to present criminal, administrative or disciplinary charges to obtain an advantage in a civil matter nor shall a lawyer present or participate in presenting criminal, administrative or disciplinary charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter.” (Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 4.5)”
“If a Justice Department attorney pursued a contempt prosecution for violation of an injunction benefiting any client of that attorney involved in the underlying civil litigation, that attorney would be open to a charge of committing a felony under В§ 208(a)…. “[a] scheme injecting a personal interest, financial or otherwise, into the enforcement process may bring irrelevant or impermissible factors into the prosecutorial decision…The exercise of supervisory authority is especially appropriate in the determination of the procedures to be employed by courts to enforce their orders, a subject that directly concerns the functioning of the Judiciary. We rely today on that authority to hold that counsel for a party that is the beneficiary of a court order may not be appointed as prosecutor in a contempt action alleging a violation of that order.” YOUNG V. UNITED STATES EX REL VUITTON, U.S. Supreme Court, 107 S. Ct. 2124, 481 U.S. 787 1987.
“No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress.” Title 18 part 3 chapter 301 В§ 4001.
I received no response when I complained to the U.S. Attorney in Colorado, the Colorado Attorney General’s Office, the FBI in Colorado and the 10th Circuit that I was jailed for 4 months by the U.S. government without being indicted, found to have committed contempt in the presence of the court, or having an evidentiary hearing, that my husband was threatened with imprisonment even though he was not accused of breaking a law, and that two more arrest warrants were issued against me all solely for engaging in non fraudulent civil litigation without hiring an attorney. The assistant to the Colorado Attorney Regulation Counsel, Matt Samuelson, wrote that the use of jailing and threats of jailing to deter presentment in court is allowable by Colorado lawyers. I am a U.S. citizen. Kay Sieverding, 641 Basswood Ave, Verona, WI 53593 608 848 5721 kaysieverding@aol.com. What’s the use of having these laws on the books?
Kay, I had no idea you posted here! Check out the KnowYourCOURTS.com and the theRobingRoom.com for some informational tidbits re: Nottingham.
I don’t mean to be disrespectful to judiciary personnel. The first thing I heard from the D. of Colorado, before service was even completed, was:
“David Brougham has advised me that in the event that plaintiffs obtain service upon any of the municipal defendants he will be the attorney for such defendants. In light of that fact, I will direct that Mr. Brougham also attend the status conference” p. 7 “order setting status conference 1/10/03 Magistrate Schlatter” Colorado 02- 1950 document 9
I asked him to recuse based on that but de didn’t and only a few weeks later:
On 2/12/03,:”Review new letter from Sieverding to Tremaine regarding Jane Bennett and many city defendants. Telephone call to Dave Brougham-discussed pleadings from Wisconsin court and Sieverding letter. Conference call to Magistrate Schlatter. Further discussion with Brougham on notice letter to Sieverding.”(e86, Bill from city of Steamboat city attorney Anthony Lettunich to City of Steamboat Springs.
I noticed someone new is suing the City of Steamboat Springs, a former firefighter, alleging first amendment retaliation, and they hired a different lawyer and set a jury trial.
I am in a stressful place though. Going to federal court was supposed to establish facts but no facts were officially establiished. I am afraid they will retaliate against me in more ways for trying to preserve my rights and my reputation. I am worried they will award attorney bills even though we didn’t get our jury trial and they had no rule 11 motion hearings and we were not accused of misquoting laws nor misrepresenting facts and I didn’t go to the public about what happened until after they published about me many times. Now they are anomymously publishing that I was convicted of a crime, which is not true. Jane Bennett’s charges that I harassed her were made without a police officer claiming he saw a crime and without a warrant. Alll I wanted was for the city of Steamboat Springs to observe its ownn land regulation laws on Princeton Ave. Jane Bennett, the city council president’s wife, made a citizen’s arrest, not allowed by the the C.R.S., and those charges were dismissed by Elizabeth Wittemeyer without a hearing in open court as is required by the C.R.S., and Wittemyer refuses to say what the probable cause was. I saw in the Wall Street Journal that her husband Chris Wittemyer was trying to sell vacant land near Stagecoach CO for $20 million after Kevin Bennett helped him get approval to put a new ski area there.
I don’t know how to protect myself and my family from these powerful parties. The only thing they claim I did “wrong” in court was file a lot of motions but they never had even a single motion hearing and the rules do not limit how many motions you can file nor set a time by when a motion must be heard. . When I filed motions, Magistrate Schlatter struck them or told the defense to ignore them, so then I refiled them. When I first filed for summary judgment the clerk’s office refused to docket it although Ii have FEDEX proof of delivery. When I got the attorney bills I saw them discussing my motion for summary judgment and calling the court about it.
“35When it was daylight, the magistrates sent their officers to the jailer with the order: “Release those men.” 36The jailer told Paul, “The magistrates have ordered that you and Silas be released. Now you can leave. Go in peace.”
37But Paul said to the officers: “They beat us publicly without a trial, even though we are Roman citizens, and threw us into prison. And now do they want to get rid of us quietly? No! Let them come themselves and escort us out.”
38The officers reported this to the magistrates, and when they heard that Paul and Silas were Roman citizens, they were alarmed. 39They came to appease them and escorted them from the prison.” Acts 16 (New International Division)”
but the 10th Circuit says I have no right to a hearing as to why I was jailed at the request of a financially interested prosecutor, Chris Beall representing the Steamboat Pilot and Mutual Insurance of Bermuda, without citation of a statute and without an evidentiary hearing.
“Why in a republic…there were not found any great number of citizens…(daring) to expose themselves and their personal safety to danger on behalf of the constitution of the state and of general liberty….(Why now) men…with sad countenances…struggling as defendants for their freedom, for their characters, for their rights as citizens, for their fortunes, and for their children; and those who have polluted, and attacked, and thrown into confusion, and overturned all diven and human laws, going about the city merry and joyful, and, while they are without any provocation, contriving danger for the …best of citizens, in no fear whatever for themselves….scandalous…nothing more intolerable….(than misuse of) the instrumentality of (court’s) authority, (court’s) integrity, and …judicial decisions…(Please) allow (court’s) voice to be useful to them to whose exertions it is owing that it has been restored…to myself…and the people” ( see http://www.perseus.tufts.edu, Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106-43 BC)
“A frequent recurrent to the fundamental principles of the Constitution …. Are absolutely necessary to presser the advantages of liberty and to maintain a free government; And that the people Have a right to require of the law-givers and magistrates an exact and constant observance of them in the formation and execution of the laws.” John Adams … 18th article of the Mass Bill of Rights of 1780
“That no mans life shall be taken away; no mans honour or good name shall be stayned; no mans person shal be arrested, restrained, bannished, dismembred nor any wayes punished; no man shall be deprived of his wife or children; no mans goods or estate shal be taken away from him; nor any wayes in damaged under colour of Law or countenance of Authoritie unles it be by the vertue or equity of some espresse law of the Country warranting the same established by a General Court & sufficiently published; or in case of the defect of a law in any particular case by the word of God.” The Book of the General Lawes and Libertyes Concerning the Inhabitants of the Massachusets (1648; facsimile edition, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929). University of Denver Sternum College of Law.
Is there a judicial nutcase virus going around?
Not 15 minutes ago I answer the phone for the first time today here in the capitol doing my volunteer stint.
This guy, like kay, starts with his life story of being wronged and the judge needs to be impeached. This guy even went so far as to state that part of the problem is that didn’t get an African-American judge and demands that one be assigned to rehear the case!
“Um,” says I, “isn’t that racist?”
As I always do with these time wasters, “How may I help you?” After getting off of the phone, my colleague filled me in on a few details. Turns out he didn’t like his divorce settlement in 2002……
Twilight Zone music, please….
I rely on the written law. Judges don’t get to do anything and everything they want. The written law is developed through much discussion over many years often with sacrifice of life. If it is written, you should be able to rely on it. This includes the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct, the Rules of Civil Procedure, The Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Rules of Evidence, the U.S. Code, the Colorado Rules of Court Procedure. the Rules of County Procedure, the Colorado Criminal Code, etc. I shouldn’t have to go and argue why this law and that law should be interpreted as written and the same as they are interpreted for other people.
“If a Justice Department attorney pursued a contempt prosecution for violation of an injunction benefiting any client of that attorney involved in the underlying civil litigation, that attorney would be open to a charge of committing a felony under В§ 208(a)…. “[a] scheme injecting a personal interest, financial or otherwise, into the enforcement process may bring irrelevant or impermissible factors into the prosecutorial decision…The exercise of supervisory authority is especially appropriate in the determination of the procedures to be employed by courts to enforce their orders, a subject that directly concerns the functioning of the Judiciary. We rely today on that authority to hold that counsel for a party that is the beneficiary of a court order may not be appointed as prosecutor in a contempt action alleging a violation of that order.” YOUNG V. UNITED STATES EX REL VUITTON, 107 S. Ct. 2124, 481 U.S. 787 1987.
“The first case is the …D of Minnesota case filed by Mr. and Mrs. Sieverding against the newspaper defendants and my law firm, Feagre & Benson. (p. 6.)….we seek an order requiring the plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Sieverding, to show cause why they should not be held in contempt (p. 11.)…they do not have the right to counsel. They do not have the right to a jury trial. They do not have the right to a full and complete evidentiary hearing. (p. 14.)…nothing short of incarceration will make them stop, and that’s an appropriate” (p. 18.) Christopher P. Beall representing WorldWest LLP 9/2/05 closed case CO 02-cv-1950
Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant: “(2) Whoever uses physical force or the threat of physical force against any person, or attempts to do so, with intent to-(A) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” (Title 18 Part 1 Ch/ 73 В§ 1512,).
The criminal statute does not exempt anyone from the word “whoever”.
My husband and I were subjected to witness intimidation.
Federally Protected Activities b) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with-(1) any… or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from-(B) participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by the United States;…or participating lawfully in speech-shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned…” Title 18, Part 1 Chapter 13 В§ 245.
Court is a federally funded and federally protected activity.
“Threatening Prosecution a) A lawyer shall not threaten to present criminal, administrative or disciplinary charges to obtain an advantage in a civil matter nor shall a lawyer present or participate in presenting criminal, administrative or disciplinary charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter.” (Cololrado Rules of Professional Conduct 4.5)”
I heard someone filed a civil lawsuit against the city of Denver and was told that they would put her in jail if she didn’t withdraw it. What a way for Lloyds of London and Mutual Insurance of Bermuda to win lawsuits againt U.S. Citizens–just put them in jail! Maybe State Farm will start putting people who sue for accident damages in jail–that would reduce auto insurance rates wouldn’t it.?
I once looked out a restaurant window onto a muddy lot splotched with patches of sooty snow, with a rusty crane sitting on a track-marked and pitted mound of muck, and thought to myself, “that’s so ugly it’s beautiful!” Your ignorance, my friend, basking in a complete denial of empirical evidence and scientific consensus; ignoring the well-trod territory known variously as “the tragedy of the commons,” “the prisoners dilemma,” and “collective action problems,” (which explains, if not excuses, the hypocricy you so poorly understand); proving the incessant ability of the right to deny all knowledge, analysis, and comprehension in their advocacy of policies that are a combination of mean-spirited anger, exploitational avarice, unfailing ego- ethno- and anthro-centricism, indifferent to our state of the art understandings of nature and social institutions as well as to our always tentative sensitivity to the rights of others (be they other individuals, other races, or other species), is truly a work of art. Really, you should be hanging in a museum.
The “Hypocrites” that you refer to DO generate a lot of CO2. Al Gore does. By the looks of it, Travolta does. More so, considering how dirty the 707 is (by the looks of the photo, those are original engines rather than converted turbofans). But sadly, nobody seems to listen. The idea is that if you generate the waste, then you are responsible for cleaning it up. While I do not know Travolta, Gore DOES use offsets for all that he generates. In fact, I like that he does have a big house AND is carbon negative (i.e. he cleans up more than he wastes). Sadly, it is the republicans who run around saying that environmentalists are pushing to cut back, when in reality, they are saying that there are alternatives (just clean it up). Basically, the republicans continue to take things out of context.
Who asked you, John Suthers?
By Bob Ewegen
Denver Post Columnist
I’ve known six Colorado attorneys general in 35 years at The Denver Post, beginning with the legendary Duke W. Dunbar, who served from 1951 to 1973.
Dunbar made a vivid impression for two reasons, the first being that his full name was Duke Wellington Dunbar, a fact that prompted longtime Post pundit Tom Gavin to write that the state’s top law-enforcement official owed his popularity with the public to “having a lock on the anti-Napoleon vote.”
Of more consequence was Dunbar’s solid reputation for integrity. He loved the law and was famous for always “calling ’em the way he saw ’em,” even if his opinions weren’t what partisans in his own Republican Party were hoping for.
Dunbar, like his successor, John Moore, was a great attorney general who happened to be a Republican. I thought of their legacy Friday when the current officeholder, John Suthers, strode forward in the role of a Republican who happens to be attorney general.
. . .
[more at]
http://www.denverpos…
Who asked you Mr. Suthers?
Um, the law? The voters? I could be way out of line here, but my understanding is that an attorney general is supposed to sort of enforce the law. And when the tax-raisers are breaking the law, I think someone is supposed to step in. But maybe there’s an exemption somehwere that says that, you know, ‘if it’s the Democrats breaking the law it’s totally cool ’cause their causes are so worth it and so high-minded we’ll just ignore it.’
Instead of whining…yet again…Ewegen needs to hit the books to find that exemption! Enough of the painfully, syrupy, whine fests–to the books Mr. Ewegen! To the books!
You mean, sort of like the now-forgotten fiasco, where Ritter came out of his cave to “enforce the law” with the Lisl Auman fiasco (see, e.g., http://www.lisl.com/…) ??
Or, how about when you complain to the Solicitor General regarding unlawfully denied public access to court records in Colorado, and you get a letter back blathering about the Separation-of-Powers doctrine (see memo near the bottom of the page at http://www.knowyourc…) ??
As mentioned ante, politics and lawyering at this level of government are inseparable. When an AG issues an unsolicited opinion, I think it’s a near certainty that it’s politically motivated.
CD-4 is looking pretty static considering there’s been a lot of movement up there lately. Nobody’s talked about Ken Buck for months since Musgrave killed the “stepping down” talk. There’s no way any Dem has better odds then Angie Paccione — particular Eric “Green in 2010” Eidsness — even if Pols has always poo-poo’d her in the General (and looked stupid for it). And there has been no talk of a primary challenge against Musgrave for a while.
man, we JUST had the election of ought six. Let’s breath and see what happens in the next year.
Well, that’s what they might as well have done. Seems that our righty legislators convened a hearing on global warming yesterday, trotting out all of the “experts” like the guy from CSU. Now, I really like contrarians, but there is a time to realize that “It all ended with satellites.” Like, maybe fifty years later?
How telling that when asked how many people in the room had NOT seen “An Inconvenient Truth”, the movie that all the righties love to shred, almost all hands went up.
Since Americans are somewhere at 65% believing that GW is a problem, sorry, same stat for George Bush, what were these ideologues trying to accomplish anyway? Proving that they don’t care what the voters think or who they vote for?
I tried to find a link, but couldn’t. It’s in todays Snooze.
U.S. rebuilt Iraq projects are crumbling. “In a troubling sign for the American-financed rebuilding program in Iraq, inspectors for a federal oversight agency have found that in a sampling of eight projects that the United States had declared successes, seven were no longer operating as designed because of plumbing and electrical failures, lack of proper maintenance, apparent looting and expensive equipment that lay idle.”
h/t Thinkprogress
Oy
Condi Rice’s deputy in charge of coordinating the Bush administration’s international program for HIV prevention/ treatment resigned after ABC’s 20/20 “outed” him as a client of a high-priced escort service ($275 per 90 minute play session at your place or hotel room). If I recall correctly, Mike Jones isn’t even that expensive!
Officially, Tobias says that he was only getting massage services. Wasn’t that also what Rev. Ted Haggard tried to claim at first?
Does anyone else see the irony in the point man for HIV prevention and treatment funding in this anti-condom/ abstenance-only administration retaining the services of a sex worker?
And some Polsters think I am the problem exposing the truth.
I bet they used condoms.
And $275 for 90 minutes in DC ain’t that bad…
some comparison shopping, I suppose? :>)
to know that I will never be able to cast the first stone. 🙂
While I’d love to swear off of David Broder entirely, Media Matters’ Jamison Foser won’t let me. Today he has the definitive summation of the “Dean’s” career in punditude. Here’s just the conclusion:
Think about where the Democrats were when Harry Reid became their leader in the Senate. Think about where they are now. Think about David Broder’s recent prediction of a Bush comeback; his touting of Bush’s response to Katrina; his praise for Cheney and Rumsfeld; his claims that journalists should apologize to Karl Rove for saying he did something he did; his call for fewer details and less discussion of policy from candidates; his defense of Richard Nixon; his prediction that if Joe Lieberman lost his primary, Democrats would perform poorly in the general election; his double standards in his coverage of candidates personal lives; his suggestion that Bill Clinton should have resigned because he “may well have lied” about sex; his unwillingness to say that a “lawless” president who “repeatedly defied the Constitution” should step down; his elitist and arrogant statement that he and his pals care more about being lied to than you do; his hypocritical statement that Kerry’s and Gore’s “arrogance rankled Midwesterners such as myself.”
Think about all that, and ask yourself: If you were David Broder, wouldn’t you — just maybe — think twice before accusing someone else of “bumbling” and “ineptitude”?
This applies to all the right wing whores and bloggers who can’t see the truth because…..as the old tired saying goes….(until someone comes up with something better)…their head is too far up their ass to see daylight!
I don’t know if this was his official announcement, but Mark Udall just declared to the La Plata County Democrats at their JJ dinner that he his running for senate in 2008, and started to outline a message focused on working on/with Ritter’s New Energy Economy, and returning to a smart — not bullheaded — approach to the war in Iraq and the war on terror.
I know that Udall’s candidacy has been a given for years, but I can’t recall him ever explicitly saying before this that he is running in 2008.
Wow, not too often I say that! His analysis of why the R’s don’t get it and are going to take some more “thumpings” at the polls in 08 and past. (Contrary to Dobby’s optimism.) Some interesting insights which in summary might be that the very things that made the R’s a recent powerhouse are now hamstringing them.
I’m posting the entire thing only because it is not accessible w/o the special paid premium NYT service.
Paul (read my diary)
April 29, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Grim Old Party
By DAVID BROOKS
At the University of Chicago there’s a group of scholars who are members of what is called the Rational Expectations school of economics. They believe human beings tend to anticipate unpleasant future events and seek in advance to avoid them. Their teachings do not apply to the Republican Party.
The Republicans suffered one unpleasant event in November 2006, and they are headed toward an even nastier one in 2008. The Democrats have opened up a wide advantage in party identification and are crushing the G.O.P. among voters under 30.
Moreover, there has been a clear shift, in poll after poll, away from Republican positions on social issues and on attitudes toward government. Democratic approaches are favored on almost all domestic, tax and fiscal issues, and even on foreign affairs.
The public, in short, wants change.
And yet the Republicans refuse to offer that. On Capitol Hill, there is a strange passivity in Republican ranks. Republicans are privately disgusted with how President Bush has led their party and the nation, but they don’t publicly offer any alternatives. They just follow sullenly along. They privately believe the country needs new approaches to the war against Islamic extremism, but they don’t offer them. They try to block Democratic initiatives, but they don’t offer the country any new ways to think about the G.O.P.
They are like people quietly marching to their doom.
And at the presidential level, things are even worse. The party is blessed with a series of charismatic candidates who are not orthodox Republicans. But the pressures of the campaign are such that these candidates have had to repress anything that might make them interesting. Instead of offering something new, each of them has been going around pretending to be the second coming of George Allen – a bland, orthodox candidate who will not challenge any of the party’s customs or prejudices.
Mitt Romney created an interesting health care reform, but he’s suppressing that in an effort to pretend to be George Allen. Rudy Giuliani has an unusual profile that won him a majority of votes on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, of all places, but he’s suppressing that to be George Allen. John McCain has a record on taxes and spending that suggests he really could take on entitlements. But at least until last week, he suppressed that in order not to offend the George Allen vote.
And just in case any of these George Allen wannabes weren’t George Allen enough for voters, Fred Thompson may enter the race as the Authentic Conservative, even though deep in his heart he’s no more George Allen than the rest of them.
The big question is, Why are the Republicans so immobile?
There are several reasons. First, there are structural barriers to change. As it has aged, the conservative movement has grown a collection of special interest groups that restrict its mobility. Anybody who offers unorthodox tax policies gets whacked by the Club for Growth and Americans for Tax Reform. Anybody who offers unorthodox social policies gets whacked by James Dobson.
Second, there is the corrupting influence of teamism. Being a good conservative now means sticking together with other conservatives, not thinking new and adventurous thoughts. Those who stray from the reservation are accused of selling out to the mainstream media by the guardians of conservative correctness.
Third, there is the oppressive power of the past. Conservatives have allowed a simplistic view of Ronald Reagan to define the sacred parameters of thought. Reagan himself was flexible, unorthodox and creative. But conservatives have created a mythical, rigid Reagan, and any deviation from that is considered unholy.
Fourth, there is the bunker mentality. Republican morale has been brutalized by the Iraq war and the party’s decline. This state of emotional pain is not conducive to risk-taking and free and open debate.
In sum, Republicans know they need to change, but they have closed off all the avenues for change.
The tale is not entirely hopeless. McCain seems now to be throwing off his yoke. Newt Gingrich is way ahead of his colleagues when it comes to new ideas and policies. The libertarians and paleoconservatives have been losing for so long they are suddenly quite interesting. There are even a few of us who think it is time to revive the Alexander Hamilton-Theodore Roosevelt legacy.
Change could, miraculously, come soon. But the odds are it will take a few more crushing defeats before Republicans tear down the self-imposed walls that confine them.
For Brooks, it seems, change means “let’s move to the left a little bit because it’s so obviously politically expedient.” But that’s not change at all. That’s status quo liberalism and that’s exactly what the Gipper fought against.
A real change would be a GOP with a spine. A GOP that can not only believe in their issues–but articulate them with a passion, a confidence that we haven’t seen in a long while. The GOP is a party of strong national defence, low taxes, and traditional moral values. The problem is the timidity with which we approach these issues. We don’t more forcefully articulate the absolute necessity of winning in Iraq. When we talk about taxes we don’t explain the valor of a self-reliant citizenry. When we talk about moral values we don’t bother to explain why they matter to a nation. We’ll push through an abortion law or whatever and leave it as self-evidently good. The problem is that, while it is self-evidently good to a whole lot of people, it isnt’ to everyone.
The GOP is such a great minority party because being in the minority necessarily prods you to argue your cause. You can’t be lazy, pass a few bills, utter the same, boring rhetoric, and move along to the next election expecting to be naturally elected. YOU HAVE TO WORK TO BE ELECTED.
I’m fully confident that there would be ample support for victory in Iraq if our president and leaders actually spoke up once in a while–if they actually treated this as a war and not a panty-waist policing operation. I’m very confident that America is behind the GOP’s values agenda. Every time there’s a vote up on some values issue–the conservatives win 90% of the votes. Gay marriage obviously DOES matter as evidenced by votes here and elsewhere in favor of traditional marriage.
If Republicans want to win they have to stop looking at the polls–a la Brooks–and start looking at the stuff with which the party is made. We can be a party of opportunism. Or we can be a party of principle. Both win elections. Only one of them wins hearts and minds.
You help insure Democratic victory for years….
It’s your very so-called principles that the electorate is abandoning. They understand that your low tax, strong national defense, etc. position is bankrupt, both morally and fiscally.
Not only that, but any R running for president will have the Bush Hangover stalking him. (Note, not a chance in hell of a Her.) Just like Gore lost a lot of votes because people were pissed at Clinton and Monica, the effect will only be worse for the R candidate in 08. The Iraq War is much more of a stain than that on a blue dress.
Say, aren’t you supposed to be in church?
Here’s something you must not have learned in your poly sci studies – Politics is the art of the possible. Those who succeed are those who compromise. Whenever either party falls prey to political correctness (and Brooks is absolutely right that there’s a conservative version) and rigid ideoogy, they lose because most people do not buy into an entire political program. The ideologues who do can’t understand that about the public because they’re so sure that they’re right.
I won’t hold my breath waiting for the hard right ideologues who run the GOP to learn this anytime soon. The hard left didn’t learn it after 12 years of Reagan/Bush even though the moderate/left Clinton was successful, politically and as a policy maker. If you can’t see that he moved a step or two to the right – balanced budget, anyone? Remember when the Gipper championed that idea? – then your worldview is too black and white.
In 2000 Gore lost because hard left ideologues rallied around and voted for Ralph Nader. If they hadn’t been blinded by their ideology they would have seen that a step or two to the right is better than a world away to the right. If you’re representative of the hard right, Dobby, we can enjoy Democratic victories for years to come.
So, drd, now that you have lost your soft safe berth at CU/Boulder…join the real world…put your money where your mouth is….join the military..sign up to fight the “real war.” I challenge you to tell us why you are not now wearing the uniform…
No sob tales about the family…..we have pregnant women and nursing moms in Iraq…..so sign up..boy…SIGNUP…
If that meant a goddamn thing than nothing unpleasant would every happen, and in fact we would have no conception of the unpleasant.
(Choo?)
But you are presuming that we can avoid all those skinned knees in life, if I read you correctly. Maybe I didn’t.
It’s just Skinnerian psychology, that we avoid pain and seek pleasure, made into a faluting sounding economic theory. And we all know where Skinner is, in the dustbing of psychological history for the most part.
Well, duh, I’m sure a few Neanderthals noticed that propensity!
It is basically utilitarianism, no?
…but I think so, especially if you capitalize the “U!”
Just wanted to weigh in that the recent diaries turned blogs on education and prison reform were really good. Except for a few “No public education at all!” and “Spit on the sidewalk and throw away the key!” posts, I think everyone had some good insights and was willing to listen.
A good model for us….
No public sidewalks, and I spit on the key of education.
I agree. Interesting how some of us are so in line on some things and in direct opposition on others.
Personal experience trumps party position.
I must say that I was surprised that Lauren is against the death penalty, and Coloradodem1 was is for the expansion of the death penalty (not that either has personal experience with the death penalty, but…).