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
October 14, 2010 03:52 PM UTC

Thursday Open Thread

  • 161 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“A remark generally hurts in proportion to its truth.”

–Will Rogers

Tweet
Share

Comments

161 thoughts on “Thursday Open Thread”

  1. from The Hill:

    Likely voters in battleground districts see extremists as having a more dominant influence over the Democratic Party than the GOP.

    This result comes from The Hill 2010 Midterm Election Poll, which found that 44 percent of likely voters say the Democratic Party is more dominated by its extreme elements; whereas 37 percent say it’s the Republican Party that is more dominated by extremists

    After all the attacks on the Tea Party, all the claims that the radical christian/racist/nazi/fascist wing of the Republican Party is in control, this is the result?  

    And it gets worse:

    More than one in every five Democrats (22 percent) in The Hill’s survey said their party was more dominated than the GOP by extreme views. The equivalent figure among Republicans is 11 percent.

    Just over 1 in 5 Dems think their party has gone too far.  That’s not good news, no matter how you want to spin it.

      1. A significant portion of the population believe expanding social service programs in a recession, spending money we don’t have which drives up debt and deficits, taking over failing companies etc is not normal behavior.  Call me silly, but I agree that those policies are extreme and cutting government and debt is not extreme.

        I think that is what the polling reflects.

        1. …they either don’t come up with an answer, or target some other program that benefits someone else.

          The Tea and Crumpets movement is dominated by people who work for the gov’t or who get substantial payment from the gov’t. When you ask them what should be cut, it’s always something that they don’t need.

          My favorite conversation on this point is with a buddy from my Army days that went from being a SSG to a GS11, but constantly hoots about how gov’t spending is out of control and deep cuts are needed now. When I bring up the idea of getting rid of all Army civilians and replacing them with AD military (a position he supported when he was IN) he immediately gets his OD brown boxers in a knot, and starts preaching about “how important govt civilians are.”

          Some guy named Clinton generated a surplus by reducing the size and spending of the Federal gov’t – but he did it over time, with smart targeted programs and increased efficiency in operations.

          Some asshole named Dubya squandered the surplus, ballooned the size of gov’t and dropped endless amounts of money in private contractors (which we had no control over) and started the avalanche of deficit that we’re stuck with now.  

          1. Calm, reasonable and facty are no way to go through blogs.

            Seriously, no one, and I mean no one, wants to hear about how President Clinton got us into surplus land, got us unbogged down in Somalia, crafted a successful result in Bosnia, or anything else.

            Cut spending. Discuss spending. Focus on spending.

            Fat chance – when it comes to budget discussions shouting about higher taxes or lower taxes is all people want – whether they are truthful or not.

    2. You know, the ones that find a majority of Americans pining for the repeal of at least some of the Bill of Rights?

      On second thought, I agree with David – a follow-on poll might resolve some questions about the results.

      Some possible reasons:

      1. Lots of moderate Republicans joining the Democratic Party of late.

      2. Lots of people feeling that the Tea Party movement is independent of the GOP.

      3. So few moderates left in the GOP that it skews the GOP results.

      4. This is a poll with a likely voter screen, which has been very heavily skewed Republican this year – more so than even 1994.

        1. I just looked at stats from the Sec State’s website. As of election 2008, Ds, Rs, and Us all were essentially tied at 1 million each. The latest numbers are Ds=800k, Rs=860k, and Us=750k. Overall, Rs have almost recovered the advantage in registration numbers they held in 2004 (the oldest numbers I saw posted online), but it’s been roughly equal for quite some time.

          Sorry, no link. I forgot to copy it before I quit the page.

            2. Bur R’s didn’t gain voters, they lost fewer.

              Why? I don’t know. If you go strictly by percentages, you’d say that some of the disaffected U’s that previously fled the GOP have returned to the fold.

              Alternatively, it could reflect the fact that there were more contested primaries on the Republican side (more D incumbents running unopposed) and U’s changed their affiliation so they could vote in the R primary.

              Or, some combination of factors.

              But the point is that while R’s have a registration advantage, I’d hesitate to crow about R’s picking up voters when you’re still down 15% from the last election.  

    3. of how brain-dead the Republican party really is? I mean we have witches, and anti-masturbation fanatics and Nazi reenactors all running under the Republican Party banner, but Dems think they are controlled by extremists?

      I think something may be amiss in that survey besides the high MOE number…

  2. In the past couple weeks he has helped Buck raise about $500K and Gardner, Tipton ad Frazier raise about $100K each.  Impresive, huh? Here is how he did it.

    The GOP-aligned American Crossroads said Wednesday it has raised over $13 million since coming under attack from President Obama.

    The group and its campaign affiliate, Crossroads GPS, said it had easily surpassed its initial fundraising goal of $50 million to spend on behalf of Republicans, and has increased its target to $65 million, according to spokesman Jonathan Collegio.

    The boffo numbers come after a week in which Obama led Democrats in attacks on the group, which is affiliated with GOP strategists Ed Gillespie and Karl Rove. Both are veterans of President George W. Bush’s White House.

    Obama accused American Crossroads and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce of possibly receiving money from foreign donors and corporations to fund their electoral activities, a charge the groups deny.

    The administration has shown no sign of relenting in their attacks toward the groups, which could have a major impact in the final weeks before Nov. 2, when voters head to the polls in crucial midterm elections.

    Collegio said the attacks had only driven interest in the group’s activities, and that the increased fundraising would allow Crossroads to spend an additional $10 million in House races, and $5 million more in Senate races.

    The Chamber, also in light of Democratic attacks, vowed only to “ramp up” its political activities in the closing weeks of the campaign.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-…

    First he makes vulnerable Dems vote for his unpopular agenda.  Then he helps fund their opponents.  The guy is pure genius.

      1. FactCheck.org says in a posting entitled “Foreign Money? Really? Democrats peddle an unproven claim.”

        Accusing anybody of violating the law is a serious matter requiring serious evidence to back it up. So far Democrats have produced none.

        Repeating a lie doesn’t make it true.  I’m sure you lefties would love to have the Chamber’s donor list so you can harass them one by one.  Too bad you have to pound sand.

        2. Repeating a lie doesn’t make it true.

          But it doesn’t make it true.

          ?

          Do we need to remind you about all the lies propounded during the Clinton administration? Whitewater, Vince Foster, Bimbo-gate, etc, etc.

          Sure seems that repetition convinced a significant number of righties that lies, innuendo, and pounding sand was a good approach to governing.

          What’s changed since then?

          1. I do from Phoenix.  There is absolutely zero evidence.  None.  That foreign money has gone toward COC political activities.

            So either show evidence, or quit repeating the lie.

            1. The CoC isn’t releasing their donor list, so there’s nothing from the chamber to disprove the assertion.

              However:

              The CoC is using their general fund to pay for their campaing efforts.

              The CoC solicits contributions from foreign companies.

              So:

              It’s logical to infer that foreign money is flowing from the CoC into campaigns. That’s not repeating a lie.

              You might have more success with a “Dems do it, too” defense. After all, SEIU has locals in Canada (aka our 51st state 🙂

            2. when the other guys are doing it.

              http://www.thedailyshow.com/wa…

              Who’s funding the community center in NYC? Are foreign funds involved?

              No evidence, but lots of repetition. Where were your comments in that thread?

              (I find it distasteful when my group uses the same tactics as other groups I am less allied with. I try not to pretend that I am shocked though.)

            3. The problem is, without separation of campaign funds from the general fund, there can be no distinction in which money gets spent how – it’s all tainted money, by the Republican standard set for abortion clinics.

              Y’all screwed yourselves on this one – you set the standard, Democrats are following it.

                1. If you mean union funds, it’s already been shown that unions maintain separate accounts for foreign contributions, cannot use those accounts for campaigning, and have to report to the DOL in detail their account details on a quarterly basis.

                  So which foreign funds did you mean?

                    2. Actually, there was some indication that Obama actually was receiving foreign contributions, but like everything else it was squelched by a fawning press. For example, there were a lot off odd cent amounts which would suggest conversions from foreign currencies. And how exactly would his website prevent foreign donations? You know he had fans all over the world.

                    3. I’ve provided the known facts about the USCOC’s revolving fund being used for ads, which includes foreign money.  You’ve provided, well, nothing.

                      On the web site donations: hint, IP addresses are assigned regionally.  There are databases which track IP address assignments, and those are used when accepting campaign donations online.

                    5. The Chamber does not deny that foreign money goes into its 501(c)6 general fund, or that it’s a single bank account, or that they’re using that fund for direct campaigning in accordance with Citizen’s United.  They refuse to disclose how they can keep commingled foreign funds separate in their accounting books, or whether they’ve used those foreign funds to cover expenses normally covered by domestic dues money, or anything else.

                      Or was your ‘riiiiiight’ about the web site donations?

                    6. When he has been put on the spot, beej tries to leave the argument with a short, sarcastic rejoinder. Too bad that people with critical thinking skills will notice that he didn’t provide the evidence he was challenged to present.

                      This is why critical thinkers know beej never wins any arguments, except in his own mind.

        3. Fact (proven): The attack ads being run by the USCOC are being run from their general 501(c)6 fund.

          Fact (proven): The USCOC maintains a single account for their general fund.

          Fact (proven): The USCOC receives foreign cash into its general fund through at least two sources to which (incomplete) real dollar inputs have been documented.

          Fact (proven): Not only did the USCOC receive these foreign funds, but it solicited additional foreign funds just before the ad campaign in a special letter to the various foreign Chamber affiliates.

          Given these facts, tell me that foreign funds are not going in to this ad campaign.  Prove to me that the USCOC has kept these foreign contributions out of their campaign expenditures.  You can’t, and the USCOC can’t, because once the money goes in to the general coffers, it’s all one pile of cash.

          Conservative railed about this for years with Planned Parenthood; PP created separate accounts, and conservatives railed that the general fund could still be used to offset the special account’s expenses.  They even got the CO legislature to essentially separate PP into two separate corporate entities to enforce the issue.  You can’t have it both ways on this one – if it was fungible for Planned Parenthood, it’s damn sure fungible for the USCOC and its foreign funds.

          The worst part about it is, the apparently minor foreign contributions to the USCOC general fund that have been disclosed are probably only the tip of the iceberg – direct contributions from foreign-owned companies are permissible to the USCOC 501(c)6 general fund, and are not tracked or disclosed in any manner.

          1. The funds are not going into this ad campaign.

            That would be illegal. But keep the attack up.  That extra $13 million for Crossroads since this latest, pathetic, desperate try at throwing something at the wall to see if it will stick is going to enable us to throw money at some races previously out of the picture.

            BTW, did you notice the new $1.5 million ad buy for Frazier?

            1. So why can’t the USCOC show us that funds we know are coming from foreign sources and going into the same account used to fund campaign ads are somehow separated in their accounting, and that their regular expenditures aren’t abnormally coming from those foreign parts of the fund?

              We’re just applying the standard Republicans set up for what constitutes “separate” funding.  

              1. The only reason the libs are shrieking in a coordinated fashion right now about this isn’t because they’re concerned about foreign money.

                This year is such a lost cause for them and they’re so pissed about CU that they’re trying to find some way…any way to intimidate companies who are flooding R 527 with cash to get rid of the Dems in Congress.  Getting the donor list from the CoC would be a quick way to do this.

                If even the NYT is calling bullshit on this crap, it’s time to give it up.

                Actually, don’t it’s an awesome fund raiser for us.

                1. Here is some of the most incandescently asshatted hypocrisy surrounding this latest ‘outrage’ being perpetrated by the CoC ‘trying to ‘steal our Democracy!!!!!!’. (Emphasis mine).


                  The White House plans to continue attacking groups  like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other conservative organizations for not disclosing the names of donors behind political ads. But during the 2004 Democratic primary  campaign, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was involved with a political advocacy group that refused to reveal its own donors until the law required it.

                  During a press conference Tuesday, Gibbs scolded groups that would not disclose, and has said that Americans have a right to know who is behind “largely negative campaign attack ads.”

                  “Simply tell us who you are,” Gibbs said.

                  In a speech last week in Maryland, President Obama even called the practice “a threat to our democracy.”

                  “The American people deserve to know who’s trying to sway their elections,” Obama said.

                  Under campaign finance law, the Chamber is not required to release the names of its donors. When pressed by reporters as to why groups not mandated by law should disclose their donors, Gibbs said they should do it in “the spirit of political disclosure.”

                  During the 2003-2004 presidential primary season, however, Gibbs worked as the spokesman for a liberal  advocacy group that ran attack ads against then-Democratic candidate Howard Dean. The “secretive” group, called Americans for Jobs, Health Care & Progressive Values, spent months organizing scathing ads without disclosing who was paying for them.

                2. I said it was illegal, but considering that the DISCLOSE Act specifically addresses foreign funding to entities not covered by current election law (because they were previously barred from campaigning), I’m guessing it’s NOT illegal, or it’s at least vague – hence the lack of DOJ action.

                  But it is absolutely corrupt.  Foreign interests should have no play in our elections.

            3. blanket assertions about things you couldn’t  possibly know, followed by chest puffing over how this will affect fundraising, fails to address a detailed, factual list that shows what’s wrong with this picture.

              I suppose if you’ve become someone who only cares about the final score, and not how it’s achieved, then that’s good enough for you.

              1. And the Dems are trowing assertions out without a shred of proof that the USCOC is actually using foreign money in political ads.

                The whole thing was started with a liberal blog post, and the tone is as shrieky so as to actually say ‘they’re trying to steal your democracy!’.

                For a crew that complains about the right governing with fear, don’t you think it’s ridiculous to throw out an aspersion and then put the burden of proof on the ‘accused’?

                1. At the very least, it’s much more reasonable to judge that it’s the truth than to judge that it’s false, so long as they don’t disclose their accounting. And I don’t know about you, but I never found asking big organizations to disclose their funding to be the equivalent of asking them to prove their innocence.

                  And after Citizens United, I really don’t think the law will be enforceable in such a scenario.

                  I think your blind faith in business is making you not look objectively at things.

                  1. At the very least, it’s much more reasonable to judge that it’s the truth than to judge that it’s false, so long as they don’t disclose their accounting.

                    They don’t want to expose their donors to crap from groups like MoveOn and Progressnowl, etc.

                    It’s still BS to make an accusation purely for the purpose of going fishing.

                    2. Not MoveOn and Progress Now!

                      You should really read back your own comment as though you didn’t write it, and see if you buy that for a second.

                      As far as “going fishing,” it’s like P.R. said. This is straight out of the GOP playbook. Maybe you’re one of the few ‘pubs who had a problem with that when they did it. But turnabout is fair play, as you well know.

                    3. Except that it’s now legal, and the floodgates are open.  Most people that employ others apparently aren’t big fans of the Dems at the moment.

                    4. You are a fool. I’ve always known it. Were the flood gates being open good for New Orleans?  

                      I EMPLOY OTHERS. How many do you employ?

                      Fucking idiot.

                      AND,,,if you choose to employ me as an example for your ignorance…..please choose more carefully.

                    5. According to you employing others makes one eeeeevil…

                      Look, everyone here knows how unstable you are.

                      Please, just take care of yourself.

      1. …to stop posting silliness like that, ya fargin’ bastage.

        http://www.opensecrets.org/pac…

        Foreign-connected PACs

        Election cycle:  2010

        Total: $12,204,154

        To Dems: $6,517,903

        To Repubs: $5,581,701

        Only American citizens (and immigrants with green cards) can contribute to federal politics, but the American divisions of foreign companies can form political action committees (PACs) and collect contributions from their American employees. Here’s an indication of the foreign-connected interests behind these PACs, based on the headquarters of their parent companies. Click on a continent to see country-by-country detail.

        1. and find all the donors to these PACS. ANd all of the PAC donations to and expenditures on behalf of candidates.

          No can do for for Crossroads GPS or the USCOC.

          They could of course just reveal it – but they haven’t and have said they will not. What are they hiding?

          1. When politics are this polarized, you’d be an idiot to risk alienating half your customers by contributing publicly. Look at what happened to Target. So, you launder your contribution through a 527.  

            1. forcing corporations to disclose all political donations. Not only customers would want to know, but shareholders have the legal right to know where THEIR money is going. If I am an owner of a company through stocks, I have a right to know how the board spends MY money!

  3. Apparently White House adviser Valerie Jarrett believes that’s how it works.  Video at link.

    Maybe this sort of explains the WH actions, and lack thereof, on GLBT issues.

    h/t Democratic Underground

  4. Our ballots arrived in the mail yesterday. My wife’s was unsealed. Everything was ok in it as far as she could tell (she compared the contents to what I got). But still, it would be nice if they sealed them all closed.

  5. I have a friend who feels strongly we should not vote until election day.  “You never know what is going to happen” is her theory.  While I respect her view, I also have to ask.  In this over the top, zany year where I have finally concluded what candidates I will vote for and ballot questions I will vote against, why wait?

      1. If you vote today, at least your mailbox and phone will not be so busy with political crap.  You’ll still need to mute the TV at all commercial breaks and not listen to the radio, but it will cut down on the clutter some.

        1. Have you heard about the mayors exotic hedge fund ‘partnership’ with PERA.

          Hickenlooper told workers at a prescription data center on Tuesday the state should use its assets for loans. He says the state could raise $100 million from investors and securitize about $50 million from the Public Employees Retirement Association to provide loans.

          http://cbs4denver.com/news/Mae…

          Just who has the mayor been “lining up” to lead this hedge fund effort?

          Personal Guarantees – is the mayor planning to allow these funds to be levered up to accelerate the private placement? Or will the PG’s be held by the select individuals the mayor has been working with on this scheme?

          Will PERA hold the recourse backing in exchange for ‘golden shares’ or prefered returns?

          Who will protect PERA returns?

          Why won’t he promote doing this with General Fund money .. out of his budget?

          Putting Pensioners money at risk so your elite insider friends can get their hands into PERA is questionable at best.

          1. Mainly because YOU posted this.

            That, and the fact the Crazy Candidate wants to cut funding to PERA, and that Maes doesn’t even understand what PERA’s assets are.

            It’s a brilliant idea – leverage $50 milion to get 2x as much from investors, then loan it to small businesses?

    2. Example- assume you are voting for Buck.

      But between now and Nov 3 he reverses his stated position on some issue important to you.  If you’ve already voted, you gotta try and devalidate your early ballot and cast a vote.

      Of course, you are right too – if Buck’s clarifications up to now haven’t turned you to the D side, what could?

      I’ve voted – so I can now focus on the final GOTv canvassing and other things. Like snow.  Where’s the snow?

    3. how many Repubs had some remorse when the facts of plagiarism & Scott’s “blame Rolly” game came to light after they had already cast their ballots?

      Something to be said for waiting ’til Nov. 2nd  

  6. these are the four (so far) that they’ve come out with:

    (Link to the page instead of posting them all):

    https://secure.ga3.org/03/vote…

    Now, I just can’t wait for an ad that talks about a Senate candidate that wants to Privatize the VA.

    (And H-man, remember that Colorado has one of the highest per capita population of veterans in the US. Veterans vote at 71% of eligibility, the highest of any demographic in the US.)

      1. I spent most of my time in the Marines in wonderful Yuma, AZ, but I still paid Colorado state income tax and, had I paid attention to politics then, would’ve voted as if I was in Colorado.

      2. …I wouldn’t even try and answer it. I do know a lot of people list their “official residence” as the Post they joined the Army. There’s a district in Texas that has almost as many absentee residents in the military as the “real” population.

        In addition, a lot of people are residents of Alaska, Wyoming and Texas (no state income tax), and because they own property in those states (esp Alaska.)

        In Fort Carson’s case, I know a lot of people are residents of Fountain – because they bought houses in the new developments, because of the school system (run by my man Mike Miles) and because they want their spouses and kids to get in-state tuition rates.  (They did pass a law in 2008 to give all military families the instate rate, but it’s not permanently funded.)

        So, ya got me…

    2. What’s your feeling on the SOS not being able to get ballots out to active-duty folks for this election cycle?

      PS did you watch the wings game on Tues?

      1. Geez, are these guys going to be the Jeckle and Hyde team of the NHL? They looked lost against Philly, but put together a damn good game against the Wings. (A team that’s still living on past glory  – I don’t think they have anything in the tank come March.)

        As far as the Ballot is concerned, considering how many stupid challenges there’s been to this election I’m amazed they got anything out to anyone.

        But the military thing does piss me off – because of all the hand-wringing over the Web-based voting system that DoD tried to put into place. But some political party got it’s panties in a knot over all those illegal immigrants that were going to hack into DoD servers to illegally vote, and scuttled the plan.

        This should be really easy – every Military person and their families have smart ID cards. They log onto their respective service’s website’s using their ID cards in a cardreader to confirm their identity. Let the DoD set up a secure website to allow these people to vote, including Election Day.

        If they can log onto their thrift savings plan, checking and savings account and their personnel records, why can’t they use the web to vote?

      2. Excuse me for butting into this conversation, and apologies for putting a kink into this great storyline, but the SoS and the County Clerks and Recorders DID successfully get ballots out to military and oversees voters 45 days before the election. (You’ll notice the lack of bold-face print.)

        Something about Repeating a lie doesn’t make it true. Or doesn’t that hold here?

        Furthermore, the SoS did inform the state legislature in October 2009 about the implications of the MOVE Act. He noted that because of the scheduled Aug 10, 2010 primary election, many county clerks and recorders might not receive the final ballot until 35 days before the general election.

        No legislator sponsored a bill to reschedule the primary or change dates for certification or …. Nobody.

        But the SoS office met the requirements of the MOVE Act, even without any assistance from the legislature.

        The “solution” suggested by Faux Nooze was to photocopy ballots at Kinkos and mail them out to anybody who wanted one. No risk of fraud here. None at all.

      3. Thanks to a heroic effort by the County Clerks.  And also thanks to no recounts or lawsuits.  The primary election results and the ballot were certified on time.

        You see, “on time” is built into state statutes that were written before the Feds passed their law.

        The problem is the date of our primary.  If we’re going to comply with the new Federal law without driving the County Clerks crazy, we need to back up our primary by a couple of weeks.  Something for the Legislature to deal with this year.

      4. Every state has their election calendars established based on a variety of different factors. Not every state is the same concerning early voting, ballot printing, etc.

        Online voting is possible and, I believe, a pilot program is underway this year in El Paso County. A bill last year made it easier to do online voting for military and provided a window for soldiers to mail their ballots in after the election.

        Many soldiers recieve their ballots from other states of residence, or they receive the ballots via fax or email – both acceptable. This federal timeline does not affect every Colorado soldier overseas, by any stretch of the imagination.

        The fact that Gessler/Tipton and others have made this a political issue shows, IMHO, how little they understand about the actual process of running elections in the state.

        The SOS, in Committee this year, asked to move the 2010 primary dates in Colorado so that the federal requirement could be met. Guess what, the Legislature ignored him and the Feds denied a waiver for Colorado.

        That is why, in a nutshell, our state is unable to comply with the federal requirement.  

        This shouldn’t be a political issue at all – it’s strictly an election logistical issue that political parties made worse…

    3. http://delcotimes.com/articles…

      An amazing flip – because a bunch of vets got pissed off with Toomey’s incredible statement that combat pay bonuses are a waste.

      That’s with a month of door-to-door and a new round of campaign ads on TV.

      Shill-man – still think it was a good idea for Buck to lie to vets, and then flip-flop about it later?

      1. has a pretty good article by Mark Blumenthal on those polls you are linking to, that were commissioned by Sestak and the DSCC. They seem to be at sharp odds with most of the other polling done on this race.

        The Democratic polls contradict not just the new Rasmussen poll but also 20 independent surveys conducted since August showing Toomey leading by margins ranging from 3 to 10 percentage points. It is certainly possible that the new Democratic results represent the sort of statistical bias we often see in publicly released partisan-sponsored polls (discussed at more length here). But as the Philadelphia Inquirer points out, the the launch of new attack ads in Pennsylvania this week by the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee (NRSC), suggests that the DSCC’s Republican counterpart “is acting as though numbers are moving in this race.”

              1. But most of the terms are close to zero or one and don’t have much effect.

                A good reasonably accurate approximation of MOE at 95 percent confidence is (n^1/2)/n–the square root of n over n.

                But that’s just sampling error.  It doesn’t account for post sampling mumbo-jumbo like likely voter models, party affiliation models, age distribution models, or nowadays, landline bias models.  That’s all proprietary to the polling house and a source of “house effect.”

      2. I spoke with someone I know who is part of Sestak’s campaign, present for all the daily campaign updates, and they were not even aware of any vet ad buys or involvment.  

        Howard Dean’s brother, Jim was there and he was helpful.  The vets?

        There are way to many variables in play to single out any one of them.  To suggest that the vets involvment in the Sestak campaign has been key is delusional.

        1. before you post your false “political insider” bullshit.

          VoteVets.org and the Sestak campaign CANNOT COORDINATE ACTIVITES. THAT WOULD BE ILLEGAL.

          If there’s even a morsel of truth in your statement, that would mean that both the Sestak campaign and VoteVets.org are following the law.

          But your main delusion is the most amusing – a $1million dollar ad buy in Penn for Sestak AND vets going Door-to-Door showing what a shit Toomey is NOT going to have any effect on the Senate race?

          Considering all the Repubs on this site are doing the Pee-Pee dance over the Frazier ad buy, I’d ask what kind of dumbass you are. But I already know…

          1. I know you like to assault anyone who bears bad news, but it is not against the law for a campaign to announce ads are now up paid for by X or that vet groups are now going door to door in your area.  That has not happened in Sestak’s campaign.

            In spite of your exaggerated sense of self-importance, there is nothing on the ground suggesting vets are making any difference.

            1. But here:

              Veterans Launch Nearly $1 Million in Ads in PA, Critical of Toomey, Fitzpatrick on Failure to Support Troops and Vets

              http://www.votevets.org/news/?…

              Again, if all you repubs can do the pee-pee dance over the $1.5m in ads rolled out for Frazier in CD7, hooting and shrieking it’ll make the dif in this market, how is it that ads AND vets and military families going door-to-door for Sestak isn’t?

      3. Or words to that effect?  If so, let’s send the little shit to Afghanistan and let him earn some of that big money, which doesn’t total out over a year to as much as some dickhead wall street trader makes in a day spending your tax subsidies.

        1. Toomey Calls Troop Bonuses “Wasteful”

          In what might be one of, if not the most underreported comments by a candidate in the 2010 races, Pennsylvania Senate candidate and former Congressman Pat Toomey in June let the truth slip out.  During a press conference where he was challenged for his vote against a $1,500 combat bonus for troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, Toomey said he voted that way because paying troops who risk their lives for America is  “wasteful” and undermined “fiscal irresponsibility.”

          Yeah, he actually said that.

          “Now there are times when some of these measures are [used] as an excuse to undermine the fiscal stability of our country,” Toomey said, according to PA2010.com, the only outlet to report the quote. “That’s very bad policy. And we shouldn’t hold military and veteran needs hostage to wasteful spending.”

          Excuse me?  This from the same guy who stood against taxing any of the bonuses that Wall Street bankers took after ripping off Americans, and says he wants absolutely no taxes at all on big corporations?

          http://www.vetvoice.com/showDi…

          1. Would you give up your $1500 to get full use of your feet again and make the pain go away?

            I would (not a service connected issue, but diabetic neuropathy in my feet causes issues for me.  So, all too literally, I feel your pain.)

              Just once I like to have a time machine and send one of these assholes back to Khe Sahn, where a friend of mine served.  He survived. But he sure as hell earned that $1,500 (adjusted for inflatio.)

              And Toomey can go to hell.  

            1. I think this guy is a complete turd, and based on a pissed-off Vet organization (that does commercials and door-to-door) the voters of PA just might think the same thing!

      1. I know you normally type before you think (if you think at all) but this is just another myth. Probably why you repeated it.

        Here’s a little gem for you just before that 2008 whuppin’ the Repub took:

        Military contributions shift – away from the GOP:

        “The shift is more than just a few percentage points. In 2002, the last full cycle before Bush launched the Iraqi invasion, the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics found that 23% of military members’ contributions went to Democrats. So far in 2007, that number is 40%.”

        “More specifically, the drop-off for Republican support within the Army is striking. Before the war, 71% of Army campaign contributions went to the GOP. This year, that number is down to 51%. So, the GOP’s advantage went from more than 2-to-1 before the war, to near-parity now.”

        http://www.thecarpetbaggerrepo…

        But then this came out right after the election:

        DEMOCRATS AND THE ‘MILITARY VOTE

        Obama won 44% support from veterans, three points better than Kerry’s total from four years ago.

        http://www.washingtonmonthly.c…

        And from OpenSecrets.org (the center for r

        According to an analysis of campaign contributions by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, Democrat Barack Obama has received nearly six times as much money from troops deployed overseas at the time of their contributions than has Republican John McCain, and the fiercely anti-war Ron Paul, though he suspended his campaign for the Republican nomination months ago, has received more than four times McCain’s haul.

        http://www.opensecrets.org/new…

        Which again proves that you don’t know DICK about the military and veterans. So go add another layer of primer to the quarterpanel you’re working on in Auto Body class, and STFU.

  11. BJ, yesterday you espoused the following view of the soldier defying deployment orders on the theory that President Obama is a Kenyan-born non-US citizen:

    he’s got more courage in his little finger to stand up to the President of the United States than anyone else serving in the armed forces.

    (emphases added)

    So please clarify: do you mean:

      (a) you’re a birther; or

      (b) you support soldiers disobeying deployment orders, just because you happen to dislike this President?

    We just need to know if you’re a traitor or a birther.

    Also, why is he more courageous than every other soldier, including ones who (unlike him) actually went into harm’s way overseas?

    1. He won’t answer your question because he’s too busy explaining why the work he does is more important than the work of our soldiers, except, of course, for one particular soldier who violated his oath of office and refused deployment to a hazardous zone.

    2. then he has a duty not to follow the orders of the usurper, even if it costs him his life.

      For the record, I do believe Obama was born in Hawaii and is the legitimate President.

      1. The Congress approved Obama’s electoral votes, based on the vote of the electoral college and the certification of the State of Hawaii.  That makes him de facto the legitimate President, and therefore the C-in-C of our armed forces.

        It is of course his right to bow out of military service and question the legitimacy of the President from outside the bounds of his military obligations.  And it would be his right to question specific orders for specific reasons within the military, though it would likely result in his discharge from the service.  But he has no right to question the legitimacy of the order, because the President was certified as the legitimate officeholder through the Constitutionally mandated process for that certification.

              1. that for you, and people like you, Obama could have shoved his birth certificate so far up you ass that you could use it as a tounge depressor, and you would still say that its existence is unproven.

      2. First and foremost, under the UCMJ, all orders are automatically believed to be legit. If a SM feels an order is unlawful, the burden of proof is on that SM to provide the evidence to the contrary. Articles 90, 91 & 91 of the UCMJ are pretty clear on this point.

        If we want to carry the letter of the UCMJ to the extreme, you can be sentenced to death for violation of any of these articles in time of War. We’ve got TWO of those going on.

        LTC Lakin keeps claiming that President Obama may not be his lawful Commander in Chief. He’s not even certain, and has offered absolutely NO Evidence to the contrary. He loses.

        Just because you believe an order is unlawful doesn’t get you off the hook. Ask SPC Michael New when we refused to wear UN gear on his BDUs prior to a deployment to the Balkans, contending it was an illegal order. New’s superiors disagreed. Ultimately, so did the court-martial panel. New was found guilty of disobeying a lawful order and sentenced to a bad conduct discharge. The Army Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the conviction, as did the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces.

        Lastly, everyone who enlists or re-enlists takes the following oath:

        “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.”

        Lastly, please,take LB advice and just shut the fuck up about military and veterans issues. Like very other issue you’ve weighed in on this website, you’ve demonstrated OVER AND OVER AGAIN that you don’t know what you’re talking about.  

          1. and a standard of separation of funds that is well established as not being present.  At this point, under any circumstance other than the mess created by Citizens United, the organization would be required to show separation or be found in violation of Federal election law.  They still might be required to do that – I don’t know.

            The birth certificate loons OTOH have nothing; the only document Hawaii will provide, which they certify as a birth certificate (usable in states the country ’round) has been produced, and the state has certified separately that Obama was born in the state.  

        2. They swear to obey the orders of the President. And I will never “shut the f*** up” about the military, veterans issues, or any other subject about which I wish to comment on, especially not just because you told me to. That’s free speech. Deal with it.

              2. seldom deal with the responsibility that accompanies the exercising of their right to spew stupidity.

                IOW, Beej, your 1st Amendment rights protect your freedom to say stupid shit from government censorship. You do not have any Constitutional right to be free of criticism from private citizens when you say stupid things.

                So, maybe you should learn about the 5th? Hell, maybe you should just start learning?

                (If you’ve started learning, you really suck at it. Keep your day job.)

                  1. Laugh Boy

                    tell it to bj once and awhile!

                    he hasn’t a clue about N Korea’s “Proper” name

                    NOR

                    Hustler v Falwell

                    please educate your own lemmings will ya?

                    the propagandist talking points only cover so much.

                    2. I’ll defend him on that point.

                      LB’s biggest problem is that he still altruistically believes that you can fix stupid.  You can’t fix stupid.

          2. ….put down the shop sander, and read the rest of the oath:

            “… and the orders of the officers appointed over me…”

            Pres Obama did not make a special trip down to the Pentagon to tell LTC Lakin he was on orders for deployment, his chain of command did. When they told him to put a sock in it and follow lawful orders, he refused without proving his case, and now is going to be walloped by the UCMJ.

            I’m telling you to shut up (along with everyone else on this site) because as usual, you’re saying dumb shit you know nothing about it. If yo quit now, you might save a minute shred of credibility on some other issues…

          3. A pitiful creature devoid of any personal honor.  You believe the sun rises and sets in your ass.  And because you are too cowardly to serve in the military yourself, you revile those who do as “pansies” while inisting that your hate speech, and perhaps some mid-level research which you claim is defense related (I suspect you are lying about that as usual) is more important to your country that the work of our men and women in the military.

              No, you will never shut up.  And you will never be a real American because you will never stop hating the men and women whose valor and sacrifice gave you the right to spew hate speech at them.

            1. helping of Borderline Pers. Disorder.  The BJ has a truly horrible need for negative attention, and a sick dependency on this blog and the attention he gets from all those who are smarter, braver and more mature than he/she.  He’s now so afraid of abandonment he’ll accept any insult, any punishment from his betters.

      3. that it’s really not important what the facts actually are, so long as you believe that the facts aren’t.

        Jesus Christ, how is it possible for you to get stupider by the day?

  12. I had a dream last night that I saw Greg Brophy in his tight Euro-bike pants, hugging the curb around a tight corner, and waving to the crowd of parading constituents. His hat was down over his eyes, as if he were hiding his shady grin.

    Later the same night, I dreamed the Super Bowl would be an “Under.” After that episode, (which curiously involved the Saints and the Cowboys; impossible, but heck, it was a dream and faces and names always get mixed up),it was something about “price perception,” and how Walmart’s recent rollbacks or rollbacks didn’t do anything for sales, but rather price perception. It all comes down to this economic principle. What is the value perceived by the voters of the candidates in front of us? Do I see value in Greg Brophy, any more than I do in betting the Super Bowl? Hell no! Do I see value in Mike Bowman and riding the fact that there might be fiscal ethical changes worthy of my vote? For sure!

    1. I had a dream last night that I saw Greg Brophy in his thin Euro-bike pants, hugging the curb around a tight corner, and waving to the crowd of parading constituents. His hat was down over his eyes, as if he were hiding his shady grin.

      Later the same night, I dreamed the Super Bowl would be an “Under.” After that episode, (which curiously involved the Saints and the Cowboys; impossible, but heck, it was a dream and faces and names always get mixed up),it was something about “price perception,” and how Walmart’s recent rollbacks of rollbacks didn’t do anything for sales, but rather price perception. It all comes down to this economic principle. What is the value perceived by the voters of the candidates in front of us? Do I see value in Greg Brophy, any more than I do in betting the Super Bowl? Hell no! Do I see value in Mike Bowman and riding the fact that there might be fiscal and ethical changes worthy of my vote? For sure!

  14. Readers here heard it first (from me):

    Bill O’Reilly believes you’d have to be crazy to think that Fox News is in bed with the Republican Party.

    At a recent campaign stop in Binghamton, NY, former President Bill Clinton told an audience, “They and Fox News and their anonymous committees and their fabulous disinformation campaign have whipped those poor Republicans up into a white heat.”

    “Honest to God, half of them need psychiatric care now. They’re just so — not because they’re crazy, but because nobody can be that angry that long and it be healthy for you.”

    The reference to Fox News got O’Reilly’s attention Wednesday.

    “Obviously some of us here at Fox News do need psychiatric help,” O’Reilly joked. “It was accurate.”

    h/t C&L

  15. The charges are familiar: He’s a compromiser who hasn’t stood up to the GOP or Wall Street. But a look at his record reveals something even more startling – a truly historic presidency

    http://www.rollingstone.com/po…

    The money quote:

    In fact, when the history of this administration is written, Obama’s opening act is likely to be judged as more impressive than any president’s – Democrat or Republican – since the mid-1960s. “If you’re looking at the first-two-year legislative record,” says Ornstein, “you really don’t have any rivals since Lyndon Johnson – and that includes Ronald Reagan.”

    ((Cue sound of Repubs heads exploding))

    1. into political races this year from Republican/conservative sources — they KNOW the President has been effective, and they’re afraid of how much more effective he can be in the next two years.  

            1. I’m just laughimg. When Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid asked “Who are the guys”?   they didn’t have these intellectual giants in mind:-).

              ROFLMAO

  18. “O’Donnell — who trails by 19 points in the latest polls — isn’t getting support from independent-spending groups such as Karl Rove’s American Crossroads.”

    My personal belief is that the media is quite faulty. What the voters will do here shortly, has very little connection to the hype.

    I guess we’ll see. I still have confidence in informed, thinking Americans. The underinformed….those who see through the lens of “me” as opposed to “us”, should come up short.

    Get it?

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

146 readers online now

Newsletter

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