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
July 08, 2010 03:48 PM UTC

Thursday Open Thread

  • 48 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“No American newspaper will print anything contrary to its own interests.”

–George Bernard Shaw

Tweet
Share

Comments

48 thoughts on “Thursday Open Thread”

    1. Singleton is getting hammered for this around the country.

      http://thefastertimes.com/tops…

      http://www.techdirt.com/articl…

      http://www.mediaite.com/online…

      http://sfppc.blogspot.com/2010…

      http://www.eastbaycitizen.com/…

      Best headline: “MediaNews Hastening Fall from Newspaper to Fish Wrap.”

      And yeah, you know that if Singleton thought this made him look like anything other than a clueless asshole, it would have been a front page story. Media FAIL.

    2. Today, the Jane Norton for Colorado campaign announced second quarter fundraising numbers. For the three-month period ending June 30, the campaign raised over $900,000.

      “We know we’re in a tough race with a smart opponent who’s seen unlimited, undisclosed money pouring in from Washington, ” said Josh Penry, campaign manager. “But these numbers send a clear message about the Norton campaign: we’ve got broad support, and we’re ready for the fight.”

  3. Whining does not make anything better — especially your reputation.

    The Post has a story this a.m. on Hick’s alleged flip flops over oil and gas regs, but you’re not linking it. There’s also a pretty good (argument worthy) column on those Respect Life license plates. No sign here of that either.

    You really think your site can go it alone without MSM?

    1. Has a story that I linked to in a diary this morning and both McInnis and Hick have issued press statements (I linked to Scott’s but you can find Hick’s on his website).

      I may be royally panned for my diary as often happens around here but that begs the question – who needs the Post?  If you are willing to dig,there are other sources.

    2. Pols has been covering Hickenlooper’s responses on the issue for weeks, and is so far ahead of the Post on this story it would be ridiculous to cite their repetitious article?

      Do you work for Singleton or something?

      1. I don’t work for Singleton. But stupid righteousness bugs me. I like coming to this site to argue politics or at least to watch others argue politics. Now Pols say they can go it alone without the top source of political news in Colorado. I think that hurts this site and that bugs me. Time for Pols to man up, admit they’ve been mooching, give credit to the labor they’ve been pirating, and make this the political site it used to be.  

    3. Are you claiming Susan Greene’s column on the “respect life” license plates was good? This is not an Internet-snark question, just trying to get a sense of other people’s read of the column. I, personally, found it less-than-enlightening, and frankly, out-of-touch with relevant attacks on reproductive rights in Colorado. There are a whole host of issues to tackle, not the least of which is Amendment 62. She could also have talked about how/whether local schools are teaching comprehensive sex ed, abstinence-only ed, or nothing at all; or about how the Lutheran & Good Samaritan hospitals in metro Denver won’t provide birth control or surgical sterilizations, let alone abortion, because the hospitals have been taken over by a Catholic organization that provides health care only if bishops say it’s OK (incidentally, these hospitals also refuse to respect patients’ living wills if they don’t want to be kept alive by artificial means, and the bishops’ rules also allow patients’ wishes regarding visitors to be disregarded).

      If she really wanted to dig into the “respect life” plates story, she could have found out whether the Colorado plates are used for the same purpose as plates in other states, such as funding anti-abortion counseling centers. Doing a simple google search yields enough information to set up a deeper story than the one that ran today.

      Thus the question about your post — arguably good column vs good enough to argue about the plates?  

  4. Which is why you rarely read critical articles about the real estate, housing, and auto dealer businesses. Gotta protect that ad revenue, along with your exclusive “content”,  right Dinky?

  6. Two stories from recommended Daily Kos diaries this morning about some rules changes coming from the Obama Administration.

    First, and probably of great interest to some here: the VA eases requirements for PTSD coverage.  The administration will make it easier for veterans to apply for PTSD disability claims.  The current rule requires the veteran to prove (via military paper trails) that they were present at a specific event that caused their PTSD (e.g. being within sight of a friend blown up by a bomb, which can be difficult to prove).  The new rule will ask veterans to prove only that they were in a combat zone in a job position that could have exposed them to the traumatic stress they claim.

    Second: FDA warns against excessive livestock antibiotic use.  The FDA will be releasing an advisory policy telling farmers to back off from their current excessive antibiotic use on the grounds that it is accelerating resistance to antibiotics.  The FDA is stopping short of an outright ban; this approach is supposed to be a signal to the industry to fix itself before the FDA has to take out the Big Hammer.

    1. ..ALL of the Service Organizations have been lobbying hard for this change, and the new VA actually listened this time.

      Contrast this with Clueless Dickhead Jim Nicholson, who went shopping to try and find an alternative diagnosis for PTSD to try cut off vets from filing claims, or his efforts in 2005 to try and review every single PTSD claim for fraud.

      Two of the OIF vets I mentor were fighting the VA over the old standard. Now, I hope they get the rating they deserve, so they can get treatment for this…

      1. I had hoped for something like this a year plus ago but I am very glad to see it now.  

        Not only the Pentagon but the politicians need to acknowledge the full extent of the costs of war.

        Will this apply to active military and not just the VA?  I want to hear about big changes in the way Ft. Carson deals with PTSD!

        If this is done right it should, I hope, bring the suicide rate way down.  

        1. That’s what the Medical Marijuana Amendment was supposed to be for – not for existing scumbag drug dealers getting storefronts to sell to 20-something Xboxers.

          I hope this works out.

          1. …and I’ve already spoken to Rep Looper and Todd on the same issue.

            If the MM industry can make some changes to how they do business (deliver a consistent dosage of THC in their wares) and the “doctors” who prescribe it also make sure that vets are in some form of therapy, I’m all for it.

  7. Oops!  Did I forget to report/repay that little loan?

    Queens Congressman Gregory Meeks made no payments for three years on a secret $40,000 personal loan – and repaid the cash only when the FBI started asking questions, the Daily News has learned.

    1. Machine politics in big cities undermine the Democratic Party ideals IMHO.

      Of course, graft is pretty widespread regardless of party, but the machine politics of places like NYC and New Orleans/Louisiana make removing obviously bad Congressmen from their home territories very difficult.

      Best example: William “Cold Cash” Jefferson.  Even with all the evidence stacked up against him, he won a place in the runoff election allowing Republican Joeseph Cao to take a very Democratic seat.  People don’t like politicians – they just like “their” politicians.  Sad, but true.

      1. we lived briefly in Oklahoma and almost every County Commissioner in the state (this time Rs) was under indictment.  Big City D corruption and Southern Bible belt R corruption generally seem to compliment each other nicely. The sex scandals seem to favor Rs, especially the gay scandals, but Ds come in for their fair share. Safe to say the political world includes lot of giant egos who like their perks, financial and sexual, and stubbornly still think they can get away with anything, just like in the old pre-cyber days.  

        1. Ernest J. Pagels Jr. is a long shot contender for the Wisconsin GOP Senate primary, vying for the opportunity to run against Sen. Russ Feingold (D) this September. And perhaps there’s a reason. Pagels recently ran an ad on a local Milwaukee television station outlining what he plans fight for as one of Wisconsin’s two U.S. senators:

          PAGELS: Hi my name is Ernest J. Pagels Jr., I’m a born again Christian, a U.S. veteran and a very conservative Republican. I’m running for U.S. Senate from the state of Wisconsin and if elected I will initiate a bill to outlaw homosexuality, abortion, and all forms of pornography. I think these are three ills that are plaguing our nation and bringing it down. And if elected, I will also initiate a bill for a Constitutional amendment which prohibits Congress and the President from spending more money than they bring in. My name is Ernest J. Pagels, Jr. and I hope you vote for me on September 14.

          h/t c&l

  8. This is something I haven’t heard about before but I think that it is important.  

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26…

    Some of these ideas could be used in the US?  It sounds like the recidivism rate is much, much less in Afghanistan and we know something needs to be done about our prisons.  The first thing that should be done about our prisons is to remove the for-profit incentive to fill the cells!

  9. Well there is no doubt that last weeks abortive attempt to redefine the illegal alien problem has backfired on Barry O.

    Obama’s Immigration Distraction

    Shikha Dalmia

    Even immigrants are shunning America’s sputtering economy.

    Even advocates of immigration reform cringed at President Obama’s speech last week with its impressive juxtaposition of contradictory vices: sophomoric and professorial; hectoring and plaintive; combative and defensive.

    http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/…

    Now if he could just explain how that stimulus has created jobs thingy…

  10. A very, very successful voucher program, killed.

    The editorial board of the Washington Post put it a little more bluntly:

       It’s clear, though, from how the destruction of the [OSP] program is being orchestrated, that issues such as parents’ needs, student performance and program effectiveness don’t matter next to the political demands of teachers’ unions.

      1. The schools get to keep money for kids they don’t even have to teach, right?


        Everyone knew OSP would be a bargain.  DC has among the highest spending per pupil in the nation.  At a conservative estimate of $17,542, the public schools spend over $10,000 more per child than the $7,500 spent through the scholarship program.

        snip

        The three main critiques of OSP are that it takes money away from the public schools, is not accountable and does not provide a cure-all solution to improving education.  None of these critiques has merit.

        First, OSP takes no money away from public schools.  By stark contrast, it pumps millions of dollars into the public schools. OSP is funded with new federal money as part of a plan that allocates matching funding directly to the public schools.  So for every dollar that goes to OSP, the public schools get an extra dollar.

        Plus, the public schools get to keep all the money saved through OSP.  This means that in addition to the matching funds, the public schools receive over $10,000 for every child in OSP-children that the public schools do not have to educate.  Also worth noting, the Education Secretary has a $159 billion budget with billions going to education programs that are unproven.

        Second, OSP is truly accountable.  Parents care about the welfare of their individual children more than any politician or bureaucrat. The parents are overjoyed with the program, unlike their prior dissatisfaction with the DC public schools they are desperate to escape.

        1. These kids get money to go to private schools, plus the public school still gets the money they would have gotten had the child remained in public schooling.

          That’s expensive.

          These kids were getting a quality education through OSP, and the results were promising.  But at the costs it was racking up, you’d think that fiscal conservatives would have been all about killing it as fast as possible.  Well, except this program pitted unions against private schools…

        2. …for every dollar that goes to OSP, the public schools get an extra dollar.

          So, $7500 goes to OSP, from the district. The Dept of Ed. then gives the district $7500. Right there, that’s $15k.

          Plus, the public schools get to keep all the money saved through OSP.

          DC is paying $17,500/kid. The pay OSP $7500 and get to keep the other $10k!

          So, we’ve got $15k + $10k = $25k/kid/year. Granted, it’s not very efficiently spent. The district keeps $17,500 and doesn’t even have to teach the kid. No wonder they like it.

          For $25k/year, you can almost send your child to Harvard. It’s hard for me to see how they can scale this program up to something more than a feel-good demo project. Maybe that’s why they killed it.

          Imagine if DPS received $25k/student/year! [insert joke here…]

          1. But it’s two kids, basically, right?  What do the schools do with the money they receive for the kids they don’t have to teach?

            Abolish the DOEd and give $1 billion to each State to run this program.  You’ll save $25 billion from the DOEd right off the bat, and it will starve the teacher’s unions out of existence, and graduate a lot more kids.

            Sounds like a great start.

              2. You start with the poorest, and poorest performing students.  The lowest 30%.

                Would not the extra money be well used to upgrade the situation for the kids still in public school?

                Did I mention that a precondition of this is to de-certify all teacher’s unions?  

                1. It won’t get you where you want to go any sooner.

                  If you do as you suggest: Get rid of the Dept of Ed and use the money to fund vouchers, you could extend the voucher program to 10 million kids (so, about 1 in 5). Target the worst-performing schools and the poorest kids.

                  If public schools keep their present funding, then their per pupil funding increases by about 20%. Use that money for a combination of decreasing class sizes and merit pay (concomitant with tenure reform).  

  12. Court Finds DOMA Unconstitutional (Daily Kos recommended diary).

    A Federal District Court in Massachusetts ruled on two cases today related to the poorly named “Defense Of Marriage Act”, and found it violates not one but two Constitutional Amendments.

    Ruling 1, Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Health and Human Services, considered whether the State’s right to certify gay marriage and have it recognized was restricted by the Federal government’s “one man, one woman” definition.  The ruling finds DOMA violates the 10th Amendment.

    Ruling 2, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, considered whether gay couples in Massachusetts were denied equal protection due to DOMA.  The judge ruled that DOMA violated the 5th Amendment (due process) right to equal protection.

    (Note: I had never heard of the 5th Amendment being used for equal protection, but apparently it can be – and said defense is legally distinct from the 14th Amendment equal protection that we’re all probably more familiar with…)

    Still pending, and soon to be decided, is the California Proposition 8 case, which is argued on 14th Amendment grounds and may or may not extend its ruling to the DOMA.

    1. This from Adam Bonin, legal expert over at Daily Kos:

      Some of Adam’s summary:

      Massachusetts has a variety of benefits it grants to its citizens — among other things, there’s a state-administered health insurance program (MassHealth). There are also a pair of veteran’s cemeteries in Agawam and Wichendon which are available for qualified veterans — but Massachusetts was told by the federal government that if the benefits of these programs were extended to same-sex spouses, millions of dollars in otherwise-available federal aid would stop.

      From Judge Tauro’s decisions:

      DOMA fails to pass constitutional muster even under the  highly deferential rational basis test. As set forth in detail below, this court is convinced that “there exists no fairly conceivable set of facts that could ground a rational relationship” between DOMA and a legitimate government objective. DOMA, therefore, violates core constitutional principles of equal protection.

      […]

      [T]his court notes that DOMA cannot possibly encourage Plaintiffs to marry members of the opposite sex because Plaintiffs are already married to members of the same sex.

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

188 readers online now

Newsletter

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