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%
December 22, 2008 04:09 PM UTC
61 Comments
A mind is a terrible thing to waste. But then, if you don’t have a mind at all, then there is nothing to waste.
From the founding president of Air America:
(Emphasis mine)
The Air America/left crowd is just as blatant as the EIB/Clear Channel crowd. The difference is that Air America doesn’t have nearly the public airwaves space at the conservatives too…
But, the partisan left, as well as the right wing, would have to move to satellite/cable just like the right. or quit lying. What is wrong with that?
I can just hear it now, and it would be music to my ears.
1) The right wing nut would say “Obama refuses to release his birth record because he is a fraud and was really born in Kenya,” And, there would be a bong sound and a voice over would say: “This statement is being brought to you at the request of the Democratic Party, pursuant to Section 4 9 A of the Fairness Doctrine, (and than a statement would be read) As the Director of Public Health for the State of Hawaii, I affirm that the public record produced by Obama verifies that he was born in the state of Hawaii.”
And everytime, a right wing nut would make that false claim, there would be the bong and the refutation.
2) Likewise, every time the left wing radio would say, “right-to-lifers only care about the child before it is born.” There would be the bong, the citation and a voice would say “Right-to-lifers donated so many dollars to the support of adoption, single parents, etc.”
The Fairness Doctrine is nothing more and nothing less that a reply button.
I can’t wait.
from the Denver Post discussing a proposal to outlaw cell phone use in cars after a child was killed in Ft. Collins by a distracted driver.
My sister has a headset and she has to wear it when she’s on the phone. If she gets caught using the phone without it, the fine is pretty stiff.
I think it’s a good idea. I can’t talk on the phone and type at the same time and I’m doing that sitting down, not driving 65 mph on the highway.
studies shows that headsets make little difference. It’s the distraction factor and phones are just one more on top of applying make-up (I once saw a woman using the rear view mirror and an eyelash curler while driving on the freeway) eating, drinking, checking paperwork, etc. Hands free sounds like a better idea but doesn’t really seem to be.
Seriously. I have a tendency to put on make up while driving. And yes, I am an accident waiting to happen.
while you’re driving right now?
At least give us an idea of your route, so we can avoid the hazard!
I’m also applying mascara and talking on the phone about who will replace Salazar in the Senate. Wow, can I ever multi task, baby.
was a kaiser, and I was chewed up MOTR style.
Most people drive sitting down, too.
See? I can’t even think rationally when I’m sitting down. Now, do you really want me driving a car at 75 mph and typing while I’m trying to think?
NY outlawed ANY use while mobile, IIRC.
It’s stupid because distractions abound and it just happened to (allegedly) have occured while using a cell phone. Look, some people can only do one thing at a time, and that would include chatting with a passenger or twidding the radio dial…oops, dated myself.
People will ignore the law anyway. Handsfree devices only mean that two hands MIGHT be available for the wheel. They have nothing to do with concentration.
on traffic accidents since the head set law went into effect in WA and the no mobile went into effect in NY.
I mean, I think it’s fantastic that you can multitask but apparently not everyone else can do the same.
I have met quite a few people who cannot multi-task. I have also met people who can multi-task without effort or even knowing they have the ability.
As with all things human, there is no correct trait.
However, I wish many who cannot multi-task, such as talking and driving at the same time, would recognize their limitations and not mess up traffic or attack my car with their SUV.
in some areas but not others. I’m guessing it’s different for each individual.
I’m with you–I wish folks would not insist they can talk on the phone and drive at the same time, when most folks clearly cannot.
I’m sure some people can but the vast majority I have met most certainly cannot. In fact, there are two friends of mine that are so bad I no longer will ride with them.
It’s a silly law because nobody is going to follow it. The cops around here can barely enforce speeding laws, seat belt laws, and other laws that are put in place to keep people safe. People break those laws every single day, and it does nothing.
before you make sweeping generalizations about whether it works or not. From what I understand, the fatality rate in states that have enacted cell phone laws has been reduced.
Calling it silly because you don’t happen to like it doesn’t make it silly. It just makes you look silly because you don’t take the time to find out if other states have found this particular law to have a positive effect on the problem.
And are you going to seriously maintain that seat belt laws have not reduced fatalities?
Let’s get real. More people wear their safety belts now because it is the law, not because they have been pulled over and gotten a ticket. The fact that it is a law makes it more of a deterrent.
In order to make a correlation, we need to have and understanding of when said laws went into effect. Need to keep in mind that proximity in time does not equal corellation. Lower accident rates may be due to less miles or other factors.
It’s long been recognized by accident investigators that the majority of people using a cell phone won’t admit to it.
In theory, there should also be a rise in accident rates from the time PCS communications became popular, call it late 90’s. From about 1984 to that time, cell phones were car phones. In my experience through that era, the high cost of purchase and time limited said cell/car phones to business people and the wealthy. Not many Ditzoid Debra’s using them.
(My PacBell service was $45/mo without one minute of use, 45 cents a minute business days, 27 cents nights and weekends. Horribly more expensive to roam. Phone cost $1700 installed in my car with a transportable pack. Would only run 4 hours. I’ve used it on a plane, no one cared. Why now?)
Pass a law that police can get if a call was in progress from the driver’s phone at the time of the accident. Not who they were talking to, just if they were on the phone.
to allow cops access to cell phone records if they believe a crime (talking while driving!) has taken place. If they were on the phone with a terrorist, it becomes a federal crime.
The more we broaden the net, the more criminals we catch. It’s that simple.
.
because then you still have to get a warrant, eventually.
Go down the hall and mine that data from the warrantless wiretapping folks. They collect Metadata on all calls, even the ones they’re not bothering to record.
In fact, if you ask them nicely, they can sometimes tell you the location, speed and direction of travel.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
.
But thank you for specifying the precise maneuver the cops could take — “go down the hall and mine the data.”
Since we’re collecting all that data anyway, why not use it to help resolve liability in traffic accidents? If you’re not talking on your cell phone inappropriately, you’ve got nothing to worry about!
As any affecianado (sp?) of Lawn Order knows, you get the LUD’s.
A few cellular programs like pre-paids and maybe Cricket and MetroPCS don’t itemize.
But who is going to do this? The police? Researchers trying find the corelation? Would it be worthwhile for a fender bender? Since 80% of Americans carry a cell phone, should a cop presume the phone was in use because it was smashed to the drivers ear, or out on the street?
Too much time on this topic!
Some of us find this subject to be of great interest.
I’m not upset.
I was merely noting to myself the many comments.
Carry on……
I will!
of course a quick google did not find them – but it found that driving while talking on a cell phone is as dangerous as drunk driving.
But that listening to music or talking to passengers was not a major problem. The theory is that on the phone you project your attention to the other end of the phone and off of where you are.
before it enacted their current law–I wish I knew how to find it. I googled and found nothing, of course. 🙂
Anyway, the statistics in it were startling and fairly convincing to most folks that a law was needed to curb cell phone use while driving.
I’m not so sure I’d go as far as drunk driving – which has quite a range of impairment – but, yes.
The difference between drivers is that some of know this and some don’t. The former (you, me) become extra cautious, a higher level of multi-tasking. Some of the latter not only can’t/don’t multi-task this, they will actually put the phone first in priority. Ring, ring! You or I may realize that traffice requires all concentration at the moment and worst case, you pick up the message later. Danny Ditzoid HAS TO answer the phone. And none of this has to do with texting.
I’ve checked email when on rural roads, but I know enough to only glance down and then a few seconds forward. It’s the same as glancing in a rear view mirror….which you should be scanning every few seconds anyway. That’s one of the hallmarks of a very good driver.
Someone who’s talking on a cell phone is foolishly only driving with one hand on the wheel.
(the late son of a recently-deceased Navy admiral, at that):
Keep your eyes on the road,
Your hands upon the wheel…
…at the ten o’ clock and two o’ clock positions, if at all possible.
twice!
I don’t know if we want to take driving directions from him.
to his designated driver.
when using both hands and talking on the phone with a headset. That would fit with the projected attention theory.
I just found this Science Daily article (6/1/08) about why talking on the cell phone while driving can be considered dangerous:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re…
So, it may be the act of talking or preparing to talk, rather than listening — or “projecting” to the other end of the line — that’s dangerous. Or driving–counter to standard driver’s education instructions–with only one hand on the wheel.
…it is already against the law to engage in careless driving.
is not defined as careless driving.
When I call Tower on the radio and tell them I’m “Right Base, Gear Down, Runway 22” is that distracted flying? Or what about dialing in NAVAIDs for an instrument approach?
I’m with Sen. Brophy. It’s absurd. Will we be making GPS systems illegal, too? What about radios?
How about this: We make the punishment for causing an accident for any reason worse, rather than singling out one behavior or another.
Government’s job is to enforce the social contract and the rule of law. Government’s job is not to socially-engineer its citizenry.
….but because he’s a cyclist. He’s the guy behind the Share the Road license plates, and he’s been behind a number of other initiatives around cycling.
And the reason they’re floating a bill to ban cell phone use without a handsfree is because a child on a bicycle was killed by a careless motorist.
Matter of fact, killing a cyclist while in your car gets you the least amount of jail time and lightest possible sentences for Manslaughter/homicide.
What we should be doing is the opposite – having some serious criminal consequences when someone runs down a cyclist while talking/texting/eating/not paying attention.
((To pre-empt the haters, do a google search on “cyclist,” “killer” and “Colorado” – they are all road cyclists trying to enjoy their legal right to ride on Colorado roads, and not the idiots how ride like mad downtown.))
First off, Ken Salazar is a slam dunk for being confirmed as Secretary of the Interior. So there is no need to hang on to his job until confirmation.
And in the Senate seniority is everything. There are 8 incoming Senators. If Ritter can appoint Salazar’s replacement before those 8 are sworn in, then Senator Perlanofflooper will have seniority over those 8. If he is appointed after, then those 8 have seniority over him.
It won’t matter much this year, but it will matter a lot in 10 years – especially as this was a much larger set of new Senators than usual.
And I’m all for Sen. Perlanofflooper!
I was leaning toward Hickenmutteroff.
it would be like John Cornyn being sworn in early in 2002. He got first choice of office space, but is ranked with the rest of his class in seniority.
Best case seniority wise would be Perlmutter being sworn in on the first day of the next congress. B/c of his time in the House, he’d rank 3rd in the class behind Udall and Udall. Anyone else would be 6th (among D’s), only ahead of Begich and Merkley.
by “anyone else” I mean Romanoff and Hick. So I guess that would be Hickenoff? Or Romanlooper? I’m not sure… 🙂
If for some ungodly reason Ritter chose DeGette, she’d jump to first in the incoming class, again, if and only if she was sworn in by the 6th.
I think the difference is that Cornyn was elected along with the rest of the new Senators that year, and tried to jump in before his fellow frosh Senators. That’s not the situation we’re dealing with here.
I think it’s more like Lisa Murkowski getting appointed in December 2002, making her beat out all the people sworn in January 2003 (including Cornyn). She actually did get seniority over them.
you’re right. Remind me not to rely on memory while posting at the airport. 🙂
What’s strange is the John Kerry actually jumped ahead of the class he was elected to in 1984 also. Paul Tsongas resigned a day early and Kerry was appointed to his seat and is ranked higher than the rest of his class.
Looks like John Warner did the same thing in 1978. They enacted a rule to discourage that sort of thing in 1980, so I’m not sure why it worked for Kerry.
.
at some point, reputation and self-respect ought to come into play in that club for pompous windbags.
.
It’s a club that consists of pompous windbags, but I think a club for pompous windbags could find many more members.
…why?
If Salazar resigns and Perlanofflooper is appointed far enough before the new session that the Senate is in session, then the replacement is sworn in and his seniority starts as of that day thereby giving him more seniority to the 8 new ones (9 once Al Frankin wins).
..but has anyone actually checked this out? i.e., David’s notion that the new Senator’s seniority starts of the day of his appointment? and how much is “far enough before”?
(see above) and David is right. In principle the appointment can start one day before the usual swearing-in, as that’s how John Kerry got his seniority.
More recently Lisa Murkowski got seniority as she was appointed in late December 2002, before the Senators-elect were sworn in.
We’re going jet skiing around the island today 🙂
Why, it’s practically a heat wave after yesterday. 🙂
you did buy the hybrid model, right?
Seriously have fun and good luck finding some huge wakes off of cabin cruisers!