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%
June 01, 2009 03:17 PM UTC
62 Comments
We’ve all iscussed Reagan with our friends from the Right, but todays N.Y. Times has a Krugman article that I found fascinating. It describes how Reagan’s approach to the financial industry was an important factor in how we find ourselves in the mess we’re in:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06…
I think it fair to say that Obama is trying to change the meaning of the writing on the wall. It’s a herculean task. We’ll undoubtedly have many different perspectives on his approach and the outcomes, but we should all get behind him with our ideas, support and good will. What the higher profile Republicans are doing is really shortsighted and ugly. Limbaugh and Cheney should be better Americans and muzzle themselves.
Dissent is unpatriotic now?
when the ‘pubs were in charge.
Limbaugh and Cheney would be well served to be rational in their dissent. They’re not, and neither is anyone who rises to their defense.
their opinions, and “dissent” is not unpatriotic, doesn’t mean that all ideas that are expressed, or all things that are expressed that dissent from some other point of view, are responsible and constructive.
Let me give you an extreme example, to make the general point: To say that you believe in murdering all members of a certain race would be a form of dissent, but one which would be rightly reviled by most who hear it. Or, here’s another “extreme” example: To say that you believe that our nation is justified in committing crimes against humanity in pursuit of our own national interest (an argument we’ve seen put into effect in other times and places) would be a form of dissent, but one which would also be rightly reviled by most who hear it.
So, the premise of your argument, that dissent can’t be strongly criticized because to criticize it is to imply that it is unpatriotic, is obviously erroneous. Dissent can be good, bad, or indifferent. It can be intelligent or stupid, constructive or destructive, admirable or reprehensible. The fact that it is dissent is irrelevant: The content, and utility, of what is being expressed is what is relevant.
Going back to Robin’s point: Limbaugh and Cheney are expressing a point of view that many in this country are rightly ashamed of, and ashamed of having been associated with. Most Americans oppose the horrible recent chapter of American history in which we came to stand for what we used to stand against, and justified in the name of our own security forms of criminal brutality that we have rightly condemned and prosecuted when committed by others. In other words, Robin was criticizing a form of dissent that defends and justifies, and seeks to continue to perpetuate, something dispicable that has been done in the name of American citizens. Shutting down that kind of “dissent” by the force of our collective outrage is nothing to be ashamed of. Quite the contrary.
Hate speech (such as the type O’Reilly has employed against Dr. Tiller) is unpatriotic as hell and in some countries, a crime.
Killing babies is patriotic. Opposing the practice is unpatriotic and should be a crime.
and in particular the second sentence, skates close to advocating homicide. You may not think so, but others may well take a different view, and the meaning of any writing isn’t determined solely by the writer!
I must wonder why ColoradoPols allows such posts, and posters, to use this facility to publicize his/her message(s), and by so doing, become a facilitator if not outright culpable. Labeling homicide a patriotic act certainly crosses some line!
Typical leftist. Redifine what somebody has written so you can justify censorship. You people really can’t handle the smallest of dissent.
I am the only person on your little echo chamber of a blog that does not agree with your point of view and you have to accuse me of advocating homicide?
Get a life.
I think that you are the perfect spokesperson for the Right. Thanks to folks like you, and Rush, and Cheney, the Republican Party and conservative extremism are increasingly unpopular, increasingly marginalized, and increasingly removed from political power and influence. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I certainly don’t want to censor you: In fact, I am delighted every time you post. Reason based on evidence in service to humanity is advanced not only by those who make the case for it, but also by those who oppose it who, like you, represent very vividly what the alternative looks and sounds like. Keep posting, Dory. Please.
Well thank you Steve. I don’t agree with what you say either, but I would defend to the death your right to spew your hatred of America too. Viva la free speech.
I am afraid in due time dissent will be outlawed by the new administration.
Can you please illustrate that characterization with something I have ever said that gives it credence? While I don’t agree with other legal analyses given here about how you have crossed the line from protected speech into legal transgression, you have in fact just come remarkably close to committing libel.
The poster signing messages as Michael Dorsett MD does not deny advocating homicide in cases of doctors who perform third trimester abortions.
ColoradoPols may wish us to imagine he/she/it does not monitor this site for inflammatory messages advocating homicide. I for one don’t believe that…or that such a denial would constitute a defense in subsequent legal actions following on some future crime as advocated on this site.
I personally wouldn’t have an abortion – but I would never stand in your way JO. By all means proceed. At least in your convulted little brain you made the case that abortion is homocide. Well done.
You and your ilk murdered Dr. Tiller as surely as if you had pulled the trigger yourself.
Dr. Tiller was one thousand times the man you are. Hang your head in shame and know that you have had no greater impact on the world than as a handle-shifting troll who got under the skin of a few liberals. Disgusting fucking coward.
But I concur. People like JO are probably to blame for Tiller’s death.
I’ve squeezed pimples that made a greater contribution to humanity than you. My dog’s shit has more intellect than you. My baby’s jaundice was more pleasant than you.
Keep it up. Every post confirms my judgment. The few lulz you’re generating for yourself won’t do anything to erase the meaninglessness of your life.
I’m through with you.
Thinking you were clever with your little talking point, only to have it thrown back in your face.
Try to think next time.
I wouldn’t recommend he or the good “Dr. Dorsett” move to Germany any time soon. They may just find their particular brand of hate/humor lands them a free cot and 3 squares a day in a room with no windows.
You would like that wouldn’t you.
Now I must get my uniform on for the swing shift and peddle my bike to work. McD’s is training me on the fryer today.
Just pointing out the obvious.
If you praised the Olbermans of the world when Bush was President, you have to allow that the Limbaughs must not be censored now. Things will shift again.
BTW, please don’t associate me with this Dorsett person. I find his POV to be disgusting.
Please don’t associate me with this mysterio person either. I find his POV to be weak and rather boorish. Nothing is more damaging to his cause then to allow leftists to define his arguement and then let him argue on their turf.
I’m pro-life. That includes doctors. Let God sort that out, not a deranged redneck asshole.
Have you read Matthew 5:22
I agree that a person grieving the loss of his child should not murder the doctor who treated the child.
All my life I’ve been waiting for God to give me direction, and now I find out he posts on a blog!
Thank you for spiritually guiding me in the correct interpretation of the bible, God.
Maybe you can tell me about the “mark of Cain”. I had a racist interpret that one to me at one point in my life. Can you elaborate, your Immenseness?
God reads Pols!
I never made any interpretation. I just told you to read it. The interpretation is your own. Good job.
You are pulling this “censorship” stuff right out of your ass. It didn’t flow with any logic from SR’s post and it doesn’t flow from mine.
And dissed by M.D. MD! If that doesn’t sting, then you really can’t think for yourself.
“Limbaugh and Cheney should be better Americans and muzzle themselves.”
They’d be better Americans if they didn’t speak?
Do you concur?
I honestly don’t understand your anger directed at me on this topic. Have I been rude to you?
No, but you’ve been intellectually bankrupt with your statements. I do not take to ignorance lightly, and let you know this in no uncertain terms.
Politics is too important to allow the ignorant to blissfully hang on to their delusions. Let me dispel one for you know.
“Limbaugh and Cheney should be better Americans and muzzle themselves.”
This in no way is censorship. Have you ever told someone to shut up? Or expressed your wish that some public figure would? Did either of these actions result in government action that silenced the person you were speaking about?
Censorship is the government-led efforts to silence or curtail the message an individual or a group wishes to express. Pressure from private individuals (which is NOT what S.R. was doing) can lead such groups or individuals into silence, but while you can debate whether that’s good or bad it’s not censorship.
And so you know, we do recognize legal restrictions on speech in this country. Speech that is inflammatory and irresponsible, such as yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, are not protected by the First Amendment.
Questions?
.
What about shouting “Fire” in a theater that’s only 1/4 full ?
What about shouting “Fire” in a crowded pizzeria ?
Oops. make that 2 questions.
.
Why should Limbaugh & Cheney shut up? The fact that we disagree with them is not a reason to say someone should be quiet. Freedom of speech is for speech you disagree with.
You can argue that it’s rude to tell someone to shut up, but you won’t be able to make a case that it’s fundamentally at odds with the First Amendment to do so.
I shouldn’t have used the word ‘censorship’. You’re correct.
However, Sir Robin makes a ridiculous assertion that Limbaugh would be a “better American” if he muzzled himself. From what I’ve read here and what I learned in Civics class (dating myself), maybe Sir Robin isn’t qualified to decide who is categorized as a great American to anyone but himself.
waiting for a Mea Culpa for calling me fool. Read Matt 5:22.
I should apologize. I’m a bit heated this morning, as if you couldn’t tell. You sound like someone who wants to actually discuss things here, and as such you ought to be welcomed by the more veteran posters here.
Sir Robin tends to express his views strongly. Keep that in mind.
Awww that is so sweet. You two have kissed and made up.
are self serving in their comments, and much of what they say has been debunked from the Chiefs of Staff of the military, diplomats, notable constitutional lawyers, and many, many others. On the one hand, Cheney is trying to head off potential criminal charges IMO, and Limbaugh just makes a lot of money entertaining ignoramuses. My point was not to censure them, but to get them to recognize more noble apects of themselves for the sake of America, which finds itself in a world of hurt BECAUSE of them.
Financially, for instance, wouldn’t the taxpayers and the country be in a much, much better position if we hadn’t squandered trillions of dollars invading and occupying a country that had nothing to do with 9/11? It’s the likes of Cheney and his cheerleader Limbaugh that worked diligently to launch that fiasco.
Good thing Obama is pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Right? How are you liking your new president with his campaign promises?
A few days back, I saw that you commented that your presentation in DC went well. Just wanted to say well done and glad to hear of it.
Now we just have about 18 steps remaining. But the federal government is amazingly open to looking for better ways to get stuff done.
(Re: the openness of the feds towards efficient alternatives.) Pleasantly surprised, I might add.
The defection of Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter from the Republicans to the Democrats has left the GOP without enough members to filibuster, and served as a wake-up call to the party.
What are Republicans doing to revitalize their image?
*Replacing apocalyptic fear-based rhetoric with more restrained fear-based rhetoric
*Now support the removal of feeding tubes, but only to allow for periodic cleaning and reinsertion
*Getting Ted Nugent and Sarah Palin to mate, creating the first member of a super-Republican race
*Reaching out to young people with Trickle, the supply-side economics mascot
*Have already given the party chairmanship to a black man-a black man, for the love of God. Was that not enough for you people?
*Now recognizing women’s suffrage
*”Getting caught” at independent movie theaters on weekday afternoons
*Maybe taking responsibility for at least a couple of things that are currently wrong with the country
From The Onion: http://www.theonion.com/conten…
You can have him. I don’t think you will like him either. But, I don’t think I am alone don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
Specter got a wake up call that he is a freaking loser and couldn’t win a primary because of his spineless actions. Now, he will lose a primary against a Democrat. Now that is funny.
…as Democrats choose to make it.
Context: Between about 1854 and 1968 there was a party called the Democratic Party–but more accurately labeled Dixiecrats–that dominated the South. That party for a long time had a somewhat strange marriage of convenience with an entirely different party, also called the Democratic Party–but more accurately labeled the Democratic Socialist Party, in the industrial North and the industrial belt that ran from Pittsburgh to Chicago, roughly, in the Midwest.
In 1968 Richard Nixon succeeded in forging an alliance between the Republican Party and the Dixiecrats; one term of tha merger was changing the name of Dixiecrats to “Republican.”
Now, the Republicans, nee Dixiecrats, have survived as the Republican Party–a purely regional entity. A handful of low-population rural states (Kansas to cite one; Wyoming for another) cling to the pre-Civil War notion of Republicans as representing agrarian interests dominated by the railroads and commodities markets. States like Colorado in particular may still be having an identity crisis, having only recently been in the ranks of the Wyomings/Nebraskas/Utahs, but also having been transformed by an infusion of migrants, particularly from California.
Point: The “Republican Party” is no longer a national party with a viable ideology or program to govern. It has shrunk to become a mixture of two regional parties, dominated by the old Confederacy, which remains an entity just as it was before, during, and immediately after the Civil War. In all respects–economic and cultural–the Republicans no longer represent a majority, especially since the third wave of American religious fervor is now past its peak of just a few years ago.
The Democratic Party needs to recognize its majority status and move forward with its programs. The Republicans are reduced to the status of junkyard dogs barking in the distance to no effect.
What do you think of this?
Putting electrical conducts on someones nuts or nipples and tuning up the juice to do physical harm is torture. Waterboarding … no so much.
Also having been in a water accident, this might be as bad in your mind. But you know the worst case is you puke and pass-out laying vertical 3.5 feet off the ground.
then you get to have a respected opinion on this issue. And I think there are several here who would be happy to do the waterboarding 🙂
They’ll get more out of it [fun] then any of the group thinkers around here.
http://online.wsj.com/article/…
Well yeah, sure the stock market will do well if you throw out all the companies who have lost all their value. It’s like kicking kids out of your family if they don’t do well in school, then finding new ones from someone else’s family, and then bragging about how smart you must be since your kids are so smart.
The DJIA has rules for listings; so do the other major indexes. It’s not about propping up the index, but rather about maintaining the purpose of the index. In fact, the index has been doing generally okay lately…
GM’s bankruptcy was an automatic disqualifier from DJIA listing. Citigroup’s current financial situation means it isn’t a good indicator of leading industry status. No big conspiracy.
Or that it was new, or unique to Dow Jones. Just something that seemed a bit dishonest to me.