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
January 25, 2011 04:43 PM UTC

Tuesday Open Thread

  • 97 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“Stupidity is the deliberate cultivation of ignorance.”

–William Gaddis

Tweet
Share

Comments

97 thoughts on “Tuesday Open Thread”

    1. Now it’s not a vote against children, it’s a vote of no-confidence in JBC staff.  Teach them to spot an error and get in front of it.

      Had that actually been the case, wouldn’t it have been smarter to pass the emergency supplemental, specifically for the program, set to go back to the GF if the error didn’t exist at the end of the fiscal (or school) year?  Rookies.

    2. Progressnowphotoshopmastersoftheuniverse look so much worse than Gessler does.

      All he wants to do is make some extra money (perhaps he’s ‘made enough’?), knowing he’ll be under intense scrutiny for which clients he does work for.

      PN launches a fake contest and never awards the prize they made such a big deal out of.

        1. What did he do wrong?  He can work wherever the fuck he wants to.

          He can’t use the power of his office in conjunction with his other gig, but he hasn’t done that, and I assume the geniuses over at PN will be rifling through his trash and following him around (after class gets out, anyway) with flip cams to make sure and hold him accountable.

                    1. Calling someone “stupid” or inferring they are a drunk or an addict generally aren’t good signs that you’re really debating from a position of strength.

                      Is it illegal for Gessler to have the second job at his old law firm?

                    3. is it considered serious enough to disbar him, because if it is PN should go that way.  

                    4. but, even if I had, (as you asked) . . . “is it illegal?”  (What that, the LB “measure of the day”?)

                      2.  Yes (you’re at least — intentionally? — a day behind the discussion on this one).  But, even if it wasn’t, Gessler’s not really coming at this thing “from a position of strength” is he?  (A different “measure of the day”?)

                      Any other “concerns,” LB?

                    5. That issue is debated in another thread -probably, but I can’t say one way or the other.

                      Still doesn’t matter – He’s the freakin’ Secretary of State. His office directly or indirectly effects every phase of business and elections in this state. And he’s now the boss of that government agency.

                      And as the executive in charge of that agency, he MUST set the example in all things. Working for his old law firm, which just about everyone agrees is a huge conflict of interest, sets the BAD example, not a good one.

                      Secondly, how qualified for this gig is he if he wasn’t even smart enough to see how much he would be paid if he got it? I wanted to work for Guv Hick, and I was aware how much a salary hit I was going to take. Why wasn’t this savvy Repub businessman/lawyer smart enough to do the same thing?

                      Lastly, trying to slide it in under the radar on a Friday stinks of a crooked move. If he’s in a position of trust, elected by the people of Colorado to serve OUR interests ahead of all others, why would we pull a shit move like this?

                      Gessler can either man up and do the right thing by being a full-time Secy of State, or he can take his greedy, crooked ass out of the office and go back to his high-priced law firm.

                      Either way, he’s lost the trust and confidence of the people of Colorado, and I’m going to view EVERYTHING he does from now on with suspicion and distrust.

                    6. The other day, I posted a bunch of cites to statutes and personnel rules (not directly applicable to Gessler but by analogy) that he might violate if he goes through with this cockamamie scheme.

                    7. Cut-and-paste from my earlier comment:

                      I don’t have much of a problem with Gessler working 5 hours a week to supplement his income or to provide a public service.  The HUGE problem is where he is planning to do that work.  There are statutes and rules for state civil service employees that aren’t directly applicable to Gessler since he’s not in that system, but they do govern Gessler’s employees.  Those include:

                      C.R.S. В§ 24-18-105(2), which prohibits state employees from holding business interests that may be benefited by “official action to be taken by an agency over which he has substantive authority.”

                      C.R.S. В§ 24-18-108(2)(d), which prohibits state employees from performing official acts that directly and substantially benefit businesses in which they have a substantial financial interest.  

                      State Personnel Board Rule 1-13, which prohibits state civil service employees from engaging in outside employment or other activity, including business transactions or private business relationship or ownership, that is directly incompatible with the employee’s state duties and responsibilities.

                      SPB Rule 1-14, which provides that state civil service employees can have outside employment with advance written approval, which may be denied if the outside employment interferes with performance of the state job or is inconsistent with the interests of the state, including raising criticism or the appearance of a conflict.

                      The Ethics Amendment, as has been discussed elsewhere, requires employees to avoid conduct that is in violation of their public trust or creates a “justifiable impression among members of the public that such trust is being violated.”  And the Rules of Professional Conflict prohibit attorneys from engaging in representation of clients where that would create a conflict of interest.

                      If one of Gessler’s employees wanted to moonlight by working for a company that was frequently in front of the SoS as a litigant, representing a litigant, trying to sell voting machines, or whatever, how could Gessler deny permission since that is what Gessler wants to do himself?

                      This notion that Gessler can do some work for the Hackstaff Law Firm and just wall himself off from SoS decisions on matters involving that law firm is arrant nonsense.  Isn’t possible.  Can’t happen.  Won’t happen.  These issues would not be present if he was teaching a law class at DU or doing a zillion other jobs to supplement the SoS’s (pitiful) paycheck.

                  2. I don’t wish to jump on top of the dogpile, but I do feel that I have to remark on this.

                    Two things should be clear about Gessler and what he’s doing.

                    One, Sec’y of State is clearly a full time job. You ought to have a problem with someone deciding to moonlight here, if only for the fact that $68k is a very livable wage, and if it’s below his comfort level, then he shouldn’t have sought out the job.

                    Two, even if his moonlighting were okay, it takes only basic ethics to perceive the conflict of interest. Even without rules, you ought to ask why he’s seeking to keep working at a political law firm while holding the job of top political watchdog in the state.

                    I see why you tend to accuse Palin’s detractors of “PDS” – it looks to me like you have a “DS” when it comes to certain liberal groups and unions.

                    1. and will say it here–when you have a public official, who works full time as Secretary of State while continuing to work on the side part-time, which job do you think is going to get more of his time and attention–the one that pays $68,000 a year or the one that pays $450 per hour?

                      If I work 10 hours a week at my law firm, in four months I can make what I make as SoS in a year. Which job do you figure I’m going to give more of myself to?

                    2. the case for SOS Gessler, and your elected position and salary is secure for the next four years. This is a sweet deal.

          1. and you’re proclaiming he hasn’t “neglected” in any way his elected office? Wow, that’s got to be a new low standard we are setting for our public officials–he’s made it 10 days without fucking up. Bravo.

            This isn’t about your perpetual hate on for Progress Now. This is about a potential conflict of interest by an elected official and the lack of oversight that currently exists to monitor that.

            The secretary of state oversees and administers laws, codes, regulations that cover a vast array of vital and contested areas of activity, including lobbying, elections, campaign finance, voter registration, ballot initiative title setting and petition verification, some gambling as well as business, nonprofit and charitable practice and licensing.

            Again, not about Progress Now. It’s about us, the voters that put him in charge of overseeing all things related to elections. So let’s talk about the subject at hand.

            It’s great that you’re willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he’ll act in good faith. Me? I prefer public oversight and I don’t care if this is a Democrat or Republican pulling this.

            He knew what this job paid when he ran. He never indicated that he would be working for his former firm–not to the voters, not to newspaper editorial boards. He never mentioned it, not once, until after he got the job.

            If you don’t see a problem with that, I’d like to hear why because even the editorial board at GJSentinel has a compelling argument about why this is inconsistent with the office he’s presiding over.

            1. but I’m going to go ahead and award this the “Comment of the Day” prize. It’s not likely to get better than this today. (SOTU comments are going to be considered separately, since that’s kind of a stand-alone thing.)

      3. This looks alot like the first Republican posting on Pols that atempts to support or excuse Gessler’s ridiculous behavior.

        MADCO, what have you got for our lucky winner . . .?

            1. Because I haven’t.

              Has a complaint been filed with the Ethics Commission and resolved in Gessler’s favor?  If so, I haven’t seen it.

              I’d say your pronouncement that “Gessler is doing nothing illegal” is premature at best, MSU at worst.

            1. I got treated to a suite at the Pepsi center by one of our own – drinks and everything.  And he didn’t even ow me anything. In fact, if anything I owed him.

              Wait- what was my point?

            2. LB doesn’t  need to win anything here.    He’s 1/2 right – the dude is entitled to have all the jobs he can work.

              Though he should not be allowed to have any that present a conflict, real or apparent, to his elected gig.

        1. I’m sure Pete’s happy you’re tuning in, but in this case (unlike the birther stuff) he’s on the money.

          PN looks idiotic right now.  Maybe it’s time for a new scathingly funny promotional item or a photoshop?

          1. We get it. You don’t like PN. Good for you.

            This isn’t about PN. PN didn’t start this. They’re just following a rather large and bipartisan herd on this.  

    3. I drive a ’91 Toyota pickup and my wife drives a ’94 Ford.  Our newest car is a 2003, but that came from my daughter after she died.

      Should I run for office?  Is that how you get a new car?

  3. Even though Federal Law (thru the Soldiers and Sailors Relief act) is explicitly clear that bank must lower interest rates on loans and they CANNOT foreclose on a home loan of a deployed Servicemember, that didn’t stop Chase from screwing over military families anyway:

    JP Morgan Wrongly Foreclosed On Military Families

    NEW YORK (Dow Jones)–J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (JPM) wrongly foreclosed on 14 active-service military families and overcharged thousands more on their mortgages, an ongoing internal bank review has found.

    While the bank said it is repaying the families and admitting to mistakes, it may also face legal fallout, according to comments made about the matter in court and by Washington officials.

    J.P. Morgan said about a year ago it launched the internal audit that found mistakes in accounting for active military service under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. That law says active-duty military families’ interest rates on homes can be no more than 6%, and they aren’t subject to the delinquency process including foreclosures.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/…

    The part about how Chase “discovered” the error is complete bullshit…the bank found out about it when Marine Corps CPT Jonathan Rowles brought a class-action lawsuit against them.

    This lawsuit seeks punitive damages as well – so I wonder, how will the erstwhile “Party of the Military” respond to the idea that one of their biggest contributors is going to get hit with a massive judgement in this case. Are they going to call for tort reform on this is well?

    1. Is that for any active duty service member or just those deployed?  And is that widely known in military communities?

      And is that all mortgage loans or just VA home loans?

      Yikes.

  4. We just need a new hero!

    Unlike modern day climate change, however, the Mongol invasion actually cooled the planet, effectively scrubbing around 700 million tons of carbon from the atmosphere.

    So how exactly did Genghis Khan, one of history’s cruelest conquerors, earn such a glowing environmental report card? The reality may be a bit difficult for today’s environmentalists to stomach, but Khan did it the same way he built his empire – with a high body count.

    Over the course of the century and a half run of the Mongol Empire, about 22 percent of the world’s total land area had been conquered and an estimated 40 million people were slaughtered by the horse-driven, bow-wielding hordes. Depopulation over such a large swathe of land meant that countless numbers of cultivated fields eventually returned to forests.

    2. As Aristotle observed, it’s a positive that you agree so heartily that human actions can have an impact on global climate.

      But the units of measure are important part of the discussion.

      Of course, 700 million tons sounds like a lot, but recall this was realized over 180 years. Or a bit under 4 million tons per year, on average.

      Just the U.S. residential use of fossil fuels resulted in the release of 1,230 million tons of CO2 in one year alone (2008 data from U.S. DOE EIA).

      The same figure (below and link above) shows that U.S. release of greenhouse gases to total 7,053 million tons in one year.

      So, if the reduction of 700 million tons of CO2 released (over a period of nearly 2 centuries) can have a detectable effect on global climate, then it is without dispute that the global production of way more than 25,000 metric tons per year is currently affecting our climate and will continue to do so into the future (2004 data from U.S. EPA).

      Hooray for progress! The problem is obvious and agreed upon.

      Now let’s get to work on some real solutions. Deal?

      1. Oops, my reporting of global CO2 production from fossil fuel burning should read:

        … 25,000 MILLION metric tons per year …

        But, what’s a half dozen orders of magnitude between friends, eh?

        It’s not like there’s a real (or potential) difference between 4 million tons per year and 25,000 million tons. The former potentially resulted in a drop in atmospheric CO2 concentration of approximately 0.2ppm. It’s not like current measures in atmospheric CO2 increases has been 3 orders of magnitude greater. Right?

        What’s a factor of 1,250 between friends?

          2. Thankfully no one is making that claim.

            But, thanks to this bit of data bolstering that even a small number of humans can have a measurable impact on the global climate, we can reasonably conclude that AGW is real, and we can easily foresee the consequences. If our coastal areas are flooded, the mass migrations and loss of aerable land will very likely lead to massive loss of life. I prefer doing our very best to head that off. And if you’re worried about what it will do to our economy, just contemplate what worldwide coastal flooding will do.

          3. from the lead author, as found at The Carnegie Institution for Science:

            Pongratz points out “So there is a large potential for our land-use choices to alter the global carbon cycle. In the past we have had a substantial impact on global climate and the carbon cycle, but it was all unintentional. Based on the knowledge we have gained from the past, we are now in a position to make land-use decisions that will diminish our impact on climate and the carbon cycle. We cannot ignore the knowledge we have gained.”

            [emphasis added]

            For some, that last statement is in conflict with their ideology. Sometimes cliches need updating. If intentional ignorance is bliss, there are many blissful Americans.

            If you have a subscription to The Holocene (or access to a university library) the actual scientific paper is available online here:

            J. Pongratz, K. Caldeira, C.H. Reick, and M. Claussen. 2011. Coupled climate-carbon simulations indicate minor global effects of wars and epidemics on atmospheric CO2 between AD 800 and 1850. The Holocene. January 20, 2011 DOI: 10.1177/0959683610386981

            As we can see from this, scientific researchers (aka, professionally trained skeptics) are willing to follow the data, even if the implications are less than savory. Deniers evaluate the veracity of data based primarily on what they want to be true.

          5. If that’s really your point, you ought to be embarrassed.

            What the authors of the study might consider the point is that land use decisions have global implications. (Even if the land use decisions came about because of genocide.)

            What the authors seem to have found is an historical episode in which land use changes resulted in a change in atmospheric CO2 along the lines of 0.2ppm over 2 centuries. In contrast, we have been conducting an experiment over the last 100 plus years in which we’ve raised atmospheric CO2 about 75ppm in 50 years.

            You want to play games at this scale? It says a lot about you. What was your point again?

            You really are off your game, LB.  

    3. aspect of the whole Gessler story right now.  With all the attention that Gessler’s getting, there may not be enough folks keeping an eye on the goings on over at the Stapleton Candy store.

                1. in response to, and primarily for the benefit of, LB.  I didn’t intend for that to be taken by anyone literally.  

                  (On a personal note DP, while I do not condone or applaud DUIs, I’m pretty aware of the fact that “there but for the grace of God go I” — I’m fortunate that I’ve never had a DUI or DWI over my long, and occasionally too stupid, life because I’ve had opportunities where I could have be cited, or worse.

                  I can’t remember exactly the last time that could have occurred, because like most folks over the past several years, I’ve come to realize that the stakes are just too high.  But, I generally don’t take any glee or find much sport in looking down upon folks that have or had those problems.)

  6. This has been swirling around since 2007, when GSA head Lurita Doan exhorted her charges to “help our candidates” in the next election.

    Now more of the same out of the Office of Political Affairs.

    At least seven Cabinet secretaries to President George W. Bush took politically motivated trips at taxpayer expense while aides falsely claimed they were traveling on official business, the independent Office of Special Counsel said Monday night in concluding a three-year probe.

    In a report on allegations that first surfaced before Bush left office, the agency condemned what it depicted as widespread violations of a law restricting political activities by federal workers and illegal use of federal funds to engage in electioneering…

    According to the report, the White House improperly orchestrated the use of assets throughout the government to help key congressional allies as the voting drew near, including arranging more than 100 ostensibly official appearances by top appointees in battleground states such as Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana and Connecticut.

    This federally funded travel was organized, approved and closely tracked by Bush’s political office…

    1. These people are now almost (if not) all gone from office, and the Administration that broke the law was term-limited out.  What happens to this (4 years in the making) report?

      Are there criminal charges?  Civil penalties?  And are those penalties severe enough to discourage people from actually doing this again, knowing they’ll get caught?

      Or is the penalty along the lines of impeachment – something that needs to go through Congress for the swift and sharp justice of our Representatives? (yeah, right…)

      I think we’ve conclusively proven that a political party can screw up at an institutional level and wind up back in (at least partial) power within two years – a simple “they did this” isn’t sufficient justice for the act.

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

191 readers online now

Newsletter

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