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 16, 2009 03:34 PM UTC

Monday Open Thread

  • 29 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“Partisanship is our great curse. We too readily assume that everything has two sides and that it is our duty to be on one or the other.”

–James H. Robinson

Tweet
Share

Comments

29 thoughts on “Monday Open Thread”

  1. The headline this week called out Sen. Bennet as a novice. Although accurate, the word novice no doubt brought a chill to the spine of our new Senator.

    On the day that EFCA was introduced last week, Bennet got a personal visit from one of the most powerful labor leaders in the country, Service Employees International Union president Andy Stern, who hammered home the importance of the senator’s vote.

    A few weeks before, Bennet attended a packed meeting of Colorado Concern, a business group whose members will be critical in Bennet’s effort to win over the state’s business community. [so they want you to believe and just how many votes do these people carry … well last time I checked it was one person].

    I must say, this quote hit the nail on the head.

    “This is about what convictions you have,” Sinden said.

    A lose-lose situation? … not so fast Senator Bennet has no position

    Bennet has said he has yet to decide how he’ll vote on the issue, and reiterated in a brief statement Thursday that he is still listening to arguments on both sides.

    Stakes remain high, forced union dues flood political coffers and corrupt business contributions flood radical 527

    Although labor PACs gave $392,850 to U.S. Sen. Mark Udall’s winning campaign in 2008, according to OpenSecrets.org – far less than contributions from business donors – they spent millions more in get-out-the-vote efforts and third-party advertising that heavily benefited Udall and other Democrats.

    Udall offers lesson, forced union dues to candidate, corrupt business dollars to radical 527 machines

    The initial success of that effort was on full display last week, when Bennet held a $1,000-per-person fundraiser that brought together political luminaries and an A-list of Colorado business leaders, including Larry Mizel, chief executive of Richmond American Homes’ parent company, and Richard Sapkin, managing partner of Edgemark Commercial Real Estate. [just how many Coloradans do these men employ?]

    Said best for the second time

    “It’s a litmus test kind of thing. It really is like being pro-choice (on abortion) or not. There isn’t really a middle ground you can grapple with,” Welchert said.

    So the test is … why don’t you have a position Senator?

    Where it stands

    Currently, Democrats are trying to line up the 60 votes necessary to cut off debate and send the bill to the floor for amendments and a vote.

    When time comes for a vote on “Card Check” we’ll know … either the Senator votes to continue the debate on the assault against American workers and businesses or he votes to stop the bill from advancing within the Senate.

    I’m taking all comers on the following office pool — I’m taking $5 Bennet votes FOR cloture and allows Card Check to continue to a full Senate floor vote. To activate the vote just type in your post “$5 Bennet votes NO on Card Check cloture”. I’ll check back to tally the pool at midnight tonite.

    Note: If I lose, your $5 gets donated to a 527 for Rep Jared Polis. If I win, you donate the cash to the Cato Institute.  

    1. don’t the voters get to decide how to run elections?  Through their elected bodies and such?  Why do you think that it is somehow more democratic to force workers to decide if they want to unionized based on management’s rules?  You’re a fraud and kind of repetitive to boot.

      1. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/…

        A BILL

        To amend the National Labor Relations Act to establish an efficient system to enable employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts, and for other purposes.

             Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

        SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

        SEC. 2. STREAMLINING UNION CERTIFICATION.

        SEC. 3. FACILITATING INITIAL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS.

        SEC. 4. STRENGTHENING ENFORCEMENT./blockquote>

        I’m taking all comers, just type “$5 Bennet votes NO on Card Check cloture” in your post.

        1. about so-called ‘card check.’  You, after all, are the one that brings it up regularly at every opportunity, and now that I ask a simple set of questions you just switch the subject.  

          Not sure if that is a sign of sheer incompetence, rampant stupidity, or just complete intellectual dishonesty, but 1/2 point for trying to dodge the question.

          2. Why won’t you support Card Check as outlined in S.560 – removal of the secret ballot?

            By extension of this theory, shouldn’t the Party’s involved in the election get to know your vote casting specifics every spring and fall?

            Or better yet, we can have candidates and their committees send out card check ballots.

    2. the reasonable conversation that CT already has in another thread.

      Udall, though David seems to think is being wishy washy, is really taking the correct position. Note that there are problems with current bill and try to begin a conversation. He’ll offer amendments or join someone else’s. Bennet ought look to Udall here.

        1. I mean, your usual stone-age rant on this subject always includes some stupidity about how the Union Websites will cause the internets to seize up, stable business to collapse at the sign of the union organizer, and massive holes to open on the streets and swallow all conservative free-market economists who oppose unionization.

          Does this have anything to do with the massive concessions the unions have been making with their employers to keep them economically viable? Or the fact that every one of your other predictions that unions will devour and destroy all business in the US has FAILED?

          1. SEC. 4. STRENGTHENING ENFORCEMENT.

                 (a) Injunctions Against Unfair Labor Practices During Organizing Drives-

                       (1) IN GENERAL- Section 10(l) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 160(l)) is amended–

                             (A) in the second sentence, by striking `If, after such’ and inserting the following:

                 `(2) If, after such’; and

                             (B) by striking the first sentence and inserting the following:

                 `(1) Whenever it is charged–

                       `(A) that any employer–

                             `(i) discharged or otherwise discriminated against an employee in violation of subsection (a)(3) of section 8;

                             `(ii) threatened to discharge or to otherwise discriminate against an employee in violation of subsection (a)(1) of section 8; or

                             `(iii) engaged in any other unfair labor practice within the meaning of subsection (a)(1) that significantly interferes with, restrains, or coerces employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7;

                       while employees of that employer were seeking representation by a labor organization or during the period after a labor organization was recognized as a representative defined in section 9(a) until the first collective bargaining contract is entered into between the employer and the representative; or

                       `(B) that any person has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of section 8(b)(4), section 8(e), or section 8(b)(7);

                 the preliminary investigation of such charge shall be made forthwith and given priority over all other cases except cases of like character in the office where it is filed or to which it is referred.’.

                       (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 10(m) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 160(m)) is amended by inserting `under circumstances not subject to section 10(l)’ after `section 8′.

                 (b) Remedies for Violations-

                       (1) BACKPAY- Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 160(c)) is amended by striking `And provided further,’ and inserting `Provided further, That if the Board finds that an employer has discriminated against an employee in violation of subsection (a)(3) of section 8 while employees of the employer were seeking representation by a labor organization, or during the period after a labor organization was recognized as a representative defined in subsection (a) of section 9 until the first collective bargaining contract was entered into between the employer and the representative, the Board in such order shall award the employee back pay and, in addition, 2 times that amount as liquidated damages: Provided further,’.

                       (2) CIVIL PENALTIES- Section 12 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 162) is amended–

                             (A) by striking `Any’ and inserting `(a) Any’; and

                             (B) by adding at the end the following:

                 `(b) Any employer who willfully or repeatedly commits any unfair labor practice within the meaning of subsections (a)(1) or (a)(3) of section 8 while employees of the employer are seeking representation by a labor organization or during the period after a labor organization has been recognized as a representative defined in subsection (a) of section 9 until the first collective bargaining contract is entered into between the employer and the representative shall, in addition to any make-whole remedy ordered, be subject to a civil penalty of not to exceed $20,000 for each violation. In determining the amount of any penalty under this section, the Board shall consider the gravity of the unfair labor practice and the impact of the unfair labor practice on the charging party, on other persons seeking to exercise rights guaranteed by this Act, or on the public interest.’.

              1. … that unions will devour and destroy all business in the US has FAILED?

                I am offering you a sure fire win … you place $5 Bennet voting NO on Card Check cloture.

                You’ll recall I have also offered volunteer at “check’em in” parties.

                With the HEAVY USE OF CAPITALIZATION I perceive you are very emotional about the Card Check issue, is this accurate?

    3. Under current law, more than 30% of  employees have to sign a card asking for a union and for management to grant them a secret ballot election to form one.  So employees already can’t secretly ask for the right to vote in a union.  Nothing to lose on that front.

      Meanwhile,  employers are free to let employees know that they had better not even try to organize and their names better not turn up on any cards.  They are free to intimidate and fire those pushing for organization and it’s almost impossible for fired employees to prove that they were fired for that reason.  Many have tried and few have succeeded.

      EFCA calls for certifying a union if 50% sign cards asking for one which takes away management’s opportunities to intimidate and retaliate.  Is there some chance that workers could be intimidated by union advocates? Fellow workers have much less power than management to do that in a meaningful way.  And, as noted by Pols, if just  30% of workers demand a secret ballot election as a next step before certification, then that’s what they’ll get.  There is a much greater chance of 30% sticking to their guns in the face of peer pressure than on pain of losing their livelihoods, as is the case now.  Especially here in the independent minded west.

      Workers will lose nothing in terms of privacy or the right to a secret ballot election.  They just gain the means of making the decision to have a union or not without fear of losing their jobs.

      1. Lets discuss the other aspects of Card Check ….

        Sections 3 and 4: FACILITATING INITIAL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS and STRENGTHENING ENFORCEMENT

        I’d like to understand where Secretary Solis is failing to remedy or cure injustices?

        Why has the new administrations Labor Department laid down; why do they fail to protect workers, companies and union rights?

    1. If I could I would post an eight paragraph treatise on why you rock too, but I am feeling non-verbose this A.M.  

      In any case, a hard ‘fought’ race.  Thanks Pols and Polsters…

      Hard to imagine a more worthy set of ‘opponents’ than SH and RSB.  Seriously…

  3. the Colorado Democratic Party, and the progressive movement in America, my mind is turning ever more toward the issue of how to convince people to embrace reason and compassion, without every abandoning my primary commitment to developing the implications of reason articulated with compassion. In that spirit, here is a little “speech” I wrote last night for our new HD28 Facebook Group:

    If there’s one thing that’s been proven over and over again in our political history, it’s that things the conventional wisdom considers to be certainties rarely are, and that an energized, organized, determined group of people can defy the odds and turn the tide. We have the beginnings of a little movement here in HD28, a core group of determined people fired-up and ready to make a little bit of local history, and a small swathe of Colorado to persuade and inspire in order to do so.

    Reason and compassion, carefully cultivated and deeply felt, do not always win the day, but they are powerful forces, powerful enough to turn Bush’s America into Obama’s, and I believe they are powerful enough to create a little miracle here in our district. Let’s turn HD28 a thoughtful shade of blue. And let’s do it by appealing to thoughtful people of good will, and shaming blind ideologues impervious to reason, with the combination of the best ideas applied to the best intentions. Let’s knock on every door, talk to every resident, speak to every gathering and gather all to the sound of our clarion call. Because the notion that government is a tool to be used wisely and affirmatively in the pursuit of human welfare broadly shared, in the cultivation of a commitment to being something more than a collection of individuals indifferent to one another’s needs and aspirations, but rather a community of people who lift each other up and achieve unimagined heights together by doing so, should be the shared ground from which all other conversatons and debates never stray.

    We have good will and good ideas on our side, and with them we are going to rally the Democrats among our neighbors, and entice the independents, and even convert more than a few Republicans, because, in the final analysis, people really do want to be governed by good will and good ideas. That’s our message, and it’s one that’s going to spread like fire through dry tinder, because people are longing for something to believe in. And we’re going to give it to them, by convincing them to join us in giving it to ourselves: The power and promise of working together in common cause.

  4. In what has become a regular–nearly weekly–occurrence (at least the ‘incidents’ that actually get reported)

    Sentinel-

    Fatal truck crash reported near Douglas Pass

    Published March 16, 2009 @ 8:24 am by Sentinel staff

    Authorities have closed Colorado Highway 139 in both directions after a three-vehicle collision that left one person dead and hazardous-materials teams scrambling to contain an acid spill.

    The Grand Junction Fire Department Hazardous-materials team and Colorado Department of Transportation have deployed sand trucks and heavy equipment to build dikes to contain the spill, according to scanner traffic.

    The Daily Sentinel is en route to the scene.

    Early reports said that a water truck, a truck hauling acid and a pickup were involved in the collision.

    1. On a related note, a commissioner on the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission spoke up for the new rules in a guest column in the Sunday GJ Daily Sentinel.

      Choice quote:

      Elected representatives and others who repeat discredited myths, spread misinformation, and provoke fear are failing their responsibilities to the people of Colorado.

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

177 readers online now

Newsletter

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