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
December 13, 2010 04:49 PM UTC

Monday Open Thread

  • 90 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“Do what you feel in your heart to be right, for you’ll be criticized anyway.”

–Eleanor Roosevelt

Tweet
Share

Comments

90 thoughts on “Monday Open Thread”

  1. It seems that John Hickenlooper is in favor of the deal struck between Republicans and the Democrats man in the White House.

    From the Pueblo Chieftain

    “I understand why the president’s compromise on extending the Bush tax cuts is controversial and imperfect, particularly with regard to deficit reduction,” said Hickenlooper, a Democrat. “But a prolonged political fight over the tax cuts and extending unemployment benefits would not be good for the country or the economy.

     “As I approach the job of balancing Colorado’s budget and getting our state’s economy on track, what happens in Washington can make a big difference,” Hickenlooper said. “I am hopeful that President Obama’s effort at compromise in Washington will be successful.”

    Having a Governor who actually understands what it takes to meet a payroll might be a good thing.

    1. continually conflate running a business with running the government? They are not the same.

      I for one am not happy to see all my government enterprises continually outsourced to for profit corporations. I was in the service when Reagan started outsourcing non-essential military functions like laundry and KP, it really didn’t take that long in the big picture before we were using mercenaries in Iraq.

      I am also not so much in favor of bending over forward for the Republican’s when they threaten and bully to get their tax cuts for the uber-wealthy in order to allow us to do what is both right and necessary for the unemployed.

      We are in decline as a nation and I lay the blame squarely at the feet of the corporatists among us.

      1. Each bit of power we give up to those whose goal is corporatocracy, oligarchy or whatever your preferred label is, sends us further over the cliff.  

        What’s fascinating is that so few people in the U.S. seem to understand how far we’ve slipped from “number one,” in so many ways.  The middle class of this country (what’s left of it) is no longer the engine of the economy – cheap overseas (or over-the-border) labor is.  Works well for the corporatists, not so much for the rest of us.

          1. but to be fair, they only said so in the context of laws Congress passed.

            Unless and until we take personhood away from the corporations, this is what we will experience from here on out I fear.

      2. Both Reagan and GW, strong proponents of running government like business and bragging about being corporate CEO style presidents, proved to be terrible stewards of the economy leaving us with huge deficits.

        An example, as you point out, is that privatization of so many functions formerly performed by our military, far from saving money through efficiencies, has resulted in grossly inflated costs. This has created huge tax payer subsidized profits for war profiteers, meeting the goals of their business models, but is hardly the best way for the government to serve the public welfare by using our collective resources via taxation to provide public services such as security and defense.  

        There are vital services which can only be provided by citizens acting collectively through government institutions precisely because they are not best provided by for profit business models, especially when the providers are freed from any serious free market considerations by being granted no bid contracts for performing services from which the ultimate consumer, the tax payer, is so far removed and reliant on bureaucracies so ill equipped or inclined to interface with the private sphere to perform close, informed oversight for them.

        The role and goals of government are simply not the same as those of for profit corporations. Profit and the public welfare are quite different reasons for being. Though there is some overlap, such as that efficiency is desirable in both spheres to maximize bang for buck, the business models that make sense for corporations should not and cannot be taken, on the whole, as blueprints for good government. Government is not just another form of business.

      3. Every time I hear a politician say he’s uniquely qualified to run a government because he’s “met a payroll” I roll my eyes. It’s made to sound like he has some mandate from heaven.

        As one who has a degree in Public Administration, I can say administering a government versus administering a business entity are two different animals. The goals and objectives of these two distinct entities are and by definition must be different and therefore different processes are used in administration. For just one example, government uses a fund accounting system, because generally accepted business accounting standards simply don’t apply.

        If I had wanted to run a business I would have appropriately gotten an MBA. But I chose instead to pursue an MPA because of my desire to learn how to efficiently, effectively, and professionally manage government entities and programs.

        I would rather have a competent public sector executive with the experience and knowledge to know government cannot be run “like a business” to person who claims they can run a government because they have “made payroll”.  

        1. How many payrolls did Tancredo or Maes meet? And why doesn’t it suddenly matter to their supporters when Hickenlooper was able to say he met his payroll? (Not that this was an issue, esp. after it turned out that Maes had greatly exaggerated his business acumen and lost all GOP support, but I really wanted to ask one of my dad’s conservative friends, a former grocer who’s fond of this clichГ©, that question.

        2. And raise you one. As a small business owner, I understand debt, borrowing and deficit. I understand that I can’t spend more than I make and if I do, I have to make a cut somewhere to balance the books. So when a politician that has owned a business runs for office, I take a closer look at them, to see if they ran one sucessfully (Hickenlooper) or if they ran into trouble (Maes) and yes, that knowledge makes a difference in how and whom I vote for.  

          1. running a business to running any organization, including government, but those we elect need to be aware that running a government is not the same thing as running a company or corporation.

            Bush pretty much bragged that he intended to be the CEO of Corporation USA.  I don’t think Hickenlooper saw his role as Mayor or sees his role as Governor as exactly the same as his role as a business man. There is nothing wrong with using or considering those skills that translate well from one sphere to the other as long as one realizes that there are very important differences, as well as overlap, between the two spheres.

            1. then you see the difference between a successful businessman in the latter and an unsuccessful one in the former.

              That said, the big difference is probably in the accountability. Independent business owners are dictators, as they ought to be. CEOs of public companies do have people to answer to, but it’s still different from being accountable to the citizenry. I think some businesspeople with political aspirations probably have trouble with that transition.

              But mostly, the whole meme from the right about electing businesspeople has more to do with their attack on career politicians. It’s a kind of bizarro world view that we should seek to elect inexperienced people to run government. And naturally you never hear them targeting career politicians from their own side, nor raising a stink when someone like Tom Tancredo decides government needs him for at least double the terms he pledged to serve.

              1. That’s true, too.  Neither GW nor Greed is Good era King, Reagan ever ran a successful business. So they not only were wrong to propose running the US like a corporation.  They also were frauds to present themselves as among those who would have a clue how to do it even if it was a good idea.

            2. There’s a reason that when you decide you want to go into politics, you usually major in political science not business. These are two careers with different skill sets. I guess I consider a background in small business as more of a bonus than a prerequisite for running for office.

              And in Bush’s case, it was public knowledge that he basically sucked as a business owner  of a national baseball team and I think that information was something that folks should have considered before voting for him.  

              1. But lots of them were encouraged by the press to vote for the guy they wanted to have a beer with.

                If you have to choose having a beer with a guy who succeeded at business on his own, or the guy who failed but was bailed out by his rich relatives, which do you choose? The latter, obviously, since he’s buying!

                1. Good point. Why do I always forget that? I suppose because I despised him, I intentionally suffer from memory loss when it comes to understanding how he got elected.

                  I know more than a few Democrats that voted for him because they thought he’d be an “okay” guy to work with. (You won’t catch a single one of them admitting it now…)

                    1. But he seemed more like a regular guy when you put him next to Al Gore (to say nothing of how he compared to John Kerry in that department).

                    3. And why should we demand the wealthy and privileged pretend to be just plain folk in the first place?  They aren’t.  GW, from a far wealthier and more privileged background than Kerry, had a lot more in common with the Saudi princes he was comfortable holding hands with than with just plain folks.  There isn’t a shred of evidence he ever spent time hanging out with any ordinary working class pals.  Guess you really can’t go wrong underestimating the public intelligence if anybody allows something so phony to influence their vote for leader of the free world. You can also be sure that most windsurfers, like most of the corporate wealth and power elite, are Republicans.

                    4. does not make them so. I agree with you, BC, but the optics during Kerry’s entire campaign were terrible. Rove & Co. did a fantastic job of exploiting that. Not saying it’s right, but few things in political campaigns are.

                    5. But as for the GW/Gore election, optics weren’t good and shouldn’t have been close enough to steal but it was a stolen election.  Gore did win Florida, as even the SOS later stated would have proved to be the case, in spite of voter suppression, intimidation, the butterfly fiasco and fraudulent removal of likely Dem voters from registration rolls, had Gore’s people demanded a full state recount instead of cherry picking and had one been allowed to proceed. That one was a bloodless rightie Supremes coup and they knew it, otherwise they wouldn’t have stipulated that it should not be construed as setting any precedents. So the American people actually didn’t elect the moron in 2000. He was de facto appointed.

                    7. We wouldn’t be talking about Florida.

                      In the end, he turned out to be a weak candidate who couldn’t carry his own state.  (Tennessee, for the uninitiated.)

                    9. The optics weren’t good (all those stupid advisers with great advice like treat Clinton like toxic waste and wear brown suits) and it should never have been close enough to steal. The VP running to continue the good times of the Clinton era should have been a shoe in despite the impeachment, which was over a strictly personal to Clinton issue, not something that tainted an entire administration with serious criminal activity, like Watergate.  Besides, Clinton still had good numbers.

                      I always felt that the big problem was all the ridiculous attempts to distance himself from Clinton on account of all the blue dress stuff as if all things Clinton were toxic when they clearly weren’t.  Clinton was still popular and times were still good.  

                      Basically presenting himself as the guy ready to keep the Clinton good times rolling while pretty much ignoring the scandal except by playing it more in sorrow than in anger over Clinton’s personal flaws, when asked directly, would probably have kept the margin big enough.  I don’t believe an election can be stolen here yet, regardless of machinations, unless it’s very, very close to begin with.  That it was close enough was team Gore’s fault.

                    11. that you can’t just run anyone against a President with a shitty approval rating and hope to win. Republicans who say Obama is toast based on polling and think they can run someone like Palin would do well to remember that. Of course I hope she wins the nomination after going as far to the right as possible to do it.  🙂

    2. and seeing two totally different things.

      I don’t see where Hick said he “is in favor” of the plan, rather that he understands that some things can’t wait.

      Or maybe I’m reading you wrong and you agree that the GOP’s whine fest could have serious consequences for the country.  Really, they should be ashamed of themselves.  Tax cuts/increases, whatever, can be done later.  If we’re going to extend unemployment benefits it needs to be done before people are kicked out of their homes.

  2. Talk Radio’s previous successful campaigns include”

    -2010 Republican wave

    -2006 Stopping immigration reform legislation in Congress

    Electing Norman Coleman to the US Senate after the Wellstone airplance tragedy-turning over Senate to the repubs and giving us the Iraq war

    Electing Brown to the Senate – destroying the occasional 60 vote democratic majority in the Senate which lead to the republican wave in 2010…see above.

    I mention these victories, not to celebrate them, but to acknowledge the strategic power of talk and to alert, those who have ears to hear, about the latest campaign on talk radio.

    I am anxious to see how powerful the campaign will be…I am not so sure it will work.  Hence my interest.  As has been noted here before, the birthers have a martyr…the erstwhile Col. Lankin who is refusing orders to be deployed because he wants proof that Obama is a legitimate president.  The trial is tomorrow. Some radio shows are gearing up to create Lankin as a “patriot” who will be courtmarshalled and become a “political prisoner.”

    The goal is to continue to attack the constitution of theUnited States and cause dissension within the military.

    Lakin is not charging that he has proof that Obama is not legitimate.  He is claiming that he does not accept the process established by the Constitution and wants “discovery.”  The argument has been rejected by civil courts, but no one was charged with anything, because it is not a crime to file suit.  (That clown from the Soviet Union, Talz, was fined for contempt of court).  However, refusing a lawful order is a crime. This is what Lakin is doing.  What is so awful is that Nixon era Corsi (who successfully “swiftboated” Kerry, gave Bush a second term and brought us the economic collapse of 2008) is claiming a Nuremberg Defense.  

    The goal of the radio campaign is to force Congress to hold hearings on the Lakin incidence.  Let us see what happens.

  3. Just to put life in perspective, we spent a worried evening last night. My middle daughter’s dog ate a tennis ball and so had to go in to surgery. She would be devastated if anything happened to her dog. She spent the evening worried about her dog and my wife and I spent it worried about her.

    All turned out well (thank you CSU Vet School clinic!) and they removed 1 tennis ball, 2 tampon applicators, and several other items from his stomach.

    2. had an exceptionally stupid Husky/Wolf mix who regularly ate batteries, lighter fluid, balloons, panty liners, and TUMS (lighter fluid does that to me, too).  The vet was always amazed, the dog was actually really healthy.  He also used to be hit by a car every month or two when he’d find a way to get outside.  Again, no major injuries.  TUMS are full of calcium!

      Glad the dog is OK for your daughter’s sake and, by extension, yours.  🙂

        1. Luck’s once or twice, this dog ceased to be dramatic.  You know it’s bad when you don’t take a dog to the vet after a pack of batteries.

          “Eh, they’ll pass.”

    3. My daughter saw him this morning and he looked great. Very happy to see her and very upset when she had to leave (she had 2 finals today). He gets to go home with her this evening. So all is good once again.

  4. from The Nation

    It’s the standard bribery model of legislating that has come to characterize Washington in the era of oligarchy: if you want to put food on the table of the unemployed, you must lavishly wine and dine the CEOs and bankers who laid them off. Obama didn’t create this system, but he is making it stronger before our very eyes.

  5. The theory was that we had to treat the large banks gently so that they could stay in business. Well, according to the Huffington Post

    Two agonizing years for the U.S. economy have been some of the best years on record for Wall Street.

    After first receiving billions in taxpayer aid, and now ultracheap funding from the Federal Reserve, Wall Street banks are on track to wrap up two of their best years ever.

  6. to add over 1600 jobs in next five years, according to an article in Denver Post today. Part of the growth will come from an expansion of wind and solar power firms such as Vestas and Abound and Ascent.  

        1. Sir Robin’s observation about the dangers of photographing or otherwise daring to engage in any activities that police don’t like but which aren’t illegal, in connection with the incident linked to.  Didn’t state the comparison with our own police that this brought to mind clearly.  

          Here in Denver, we have one of scariest forces around and that’s been the case for decades.  It’s been on my mind because, in the wake of the more recent unjustified beatings that have made the news with increased frequency, I’ve heard a heart breaking tale from a Denver native friend involving Denver police brutality, criminality, corruption and cover ups dating back many decades that had tragic results for her family.  

          The problem of police acting like just another gang that retaliates when they have the slightest reason to think they are being dissed and then enforces no snitchin’ seems to be getting out of control in a lot of places, including Denver.

  8. Hurry and get this turd to the Supreme Court, already…

    Washington (CNN) – A federal judge in Virginia has ruled parts of the sweeping health care reform effort led by President Obama to be unconstitutional.

        1. If you repeal it, and exclude the mandate as a viable alternative, the only reform available is the public option.

          All of the alternatives that you and other conservatives have proposed simply won’t work without a mandate. Unless by “work” you mean poor people die because they can’t afford treatment.

    3. included in this decision, such as a distinction between a tax and a penalty, which the judge took great care to include and which provide opportunities to make adjustments, provided any are finally needed, as this proceeds through the courts. There are already two decisions to the contrary.

      All the rightie media will no doubt also ignore everything but the sensational “unconstitutional” with no further explanation. If the administration does their usual lousy job of challenging rightie message hegemony, the simplistic take you are doing a happy dance over will become the common wisdom while other court decisions and any caveats will remain largely unknown but that may not do your side much good ultimately.

      1. that he’s still showing as being in the “Colorado Pols Penalty Box”.  That might be a little confusing to some of the others here — the one’s not as sharp as you or I.   ;~)

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

409 readers online now

Newsletter

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