President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

30%

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
April 12, 2011 03:49 PM UTC

Tuesday Open Thread

  • 38 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“It is an ill thing to be the first to bring news of ill.”

–Aeschylus

Tweet
Share

Comments

38 thoughts on “Tuesday Open Thread”

    2. Title X and Planned Parenthood cuts don’t harm the organizations which provide services, so much as harm the women who rely on these services for Pap smears, STD testing, and birth control.

      As for your question, absent the prior rancor on gay issues as the populus becomes more tolerant of homosexuality, abortion and low-income women who dare to have sex are still a powerful motivator for the case.

      1. who was covered by PP as an adult by a grant for a couple of years. Grant ran out, she had an issue, couldn’t afford to go, the symptoms went away.

        Next came college and a very happy marriage to an attorney, then miscarriage and second pregnancy before they found the problem that had first presented when she was 21. Second baby was also lost.

        Why do Republicans hate babies?

      2. This may have been a really stupid move for the Go(T)P; an issue to motivate moderates who might have stayed home to come out on vote:

        Online gifts to Planned Parenthood have surged by 500 percent since Republicans passed a budget amendment stripping the group of its federal funding.

        NARAL Pro-Choice America’s email activist list grew by 1,000 subscribers per day at the height of the budget debate.

        With the budget battle putting women’s health issues front and center, reproductive health groups tell POLITICO they’ve seen an unprecedented surge in activism at a time when many supporters had grown complacent, less fazed by legislative threats now that a president who supports abortion rights is at the helm…

        …Planned Parenthood’s Facebook fans surged 992 percent after the House approved the budget amendment to defund the group in mid-February. More than 810,000 supporters signed its petition denouncing the amendment – more than half of them new users who had never been active with Planned Parenthood prior to the budget debate. The social media activity also drove Planned Parenthood’s surge in online donations.

        When Planned Parenthood hit Capitol Hill in the final days of the budget debate, it handed out copies of “Stories From Home,” a newly compiled book of supporters’ stories selected from more than 7,000 personal narratives submitted online. Stories came from all 50 states.

        “I have pages and pages of women saying Planned Parenthood found early-stage cervical cancer, and they got me to a doctor,” Richards said. “This is not an imaginary issue. It’s real. It’s 7,000 stories, and that is very poignant.”

    3. I’ve heard all of the above from actual-factual men who believe these things to be true. They think that women are trying to remake men in the mold of submissive housewives from the 1950s–oddly enough they call this “feminizing” men, even as they rail against women who they claim are acting in a manner that is quite opposite of the stereotype they describe as “femininity.”

      Granted, there are certain social biases that restrict men; these, like the ones that restrict women, generally stem from a patriarchal social history that forced both sexes into rigid gender roles. Yet, certain elements of the right wing actively and viciously attack women, claiming that patriarchal stereotypes (for instance, “men can’t be involved, loving parents”) are the fault of feminists–yep, the very same feminists that clawed their way into the workplace and forced society to start accepting a more nuanced view of fatherhood, because with both parents working, fathers were expected to become more involved. Yet, whenever anyone voices the opinion that women are more nurturing, it’s them evil feminists out to get men again.

      Of course, if women are secretly controlling the government with our evil feminist agenda, we’re doing a pretty bad job of it, what with nearly shutting it down because too many low income women were (GASP) getting health care.

        1. It distracts them while women obtain more college degrees than men and rapidly close the wage gap. They won’t notice anything’s amiss until I’m their CEO.

    1. I checked your second, what looked like an industry sponsored link, which was definitely interesting.

      Still dosen’t say exactly what chemicals are in the fracking fluid.  They make it look like its all just water anyway !

      Lies by omission.

      1. surfactant, KCI, gelling agent, scale inhibitor, PH adjusting agent, breaker, crosslinker, iron control, corrosion inhibitor, biocide, acid and friction reducer.

        So they will name the FUNCTIONS of the additives to fracing fluid but NOT WHAT CHEMICALS THEY ACTUALLY ARE.

        We can’t let you really know what chemicals we are putting into the ground – thats a trade secret !  

        I bet Club Twitty and DukeCo know rather well.

  3. All on Romer. I caught an odd call for donations today; $10,000 to keep us on the air help in general buy phones, paper, and snacks. Seriously? Who’s going to send a ton of cash for that?

    Could just be a clever volunteer scheme. I’m tempted to go out and “help” some more. I have so few cookies here and he clearly aims to have so many.

    Just struck me as lame.

    On a more serious note, ballots are headed out so soon. Then, you know, the fun starts. Take a ream of paper to any candidate you care for!

      1. On the one hand, that was hilarious and I want to say I love you. On the other hand, I’m not a fan of mocking the physical appearances of candidates. On the third hand, Chris Romer brought it on himself with his rude cupcake question to Linkhart…

        I think I’ll refrain from deciding how I feel  about this while I make an appointment to get that third hand checked out. (Could this have to do with the Cotter Mine runoff?)

        1. the “cupcake” issue has been the centerpiece of Romer’s campaign so far, including his recent television commercials.  (There must be alot of polling showing cupcakes as an important issue for the Denver electorate.)

          “Cannonball” is from Romer’s interview on “candidate cribs” and is the name given to him by his cycling team.

          (Like Mark Russell — I know you’re probably too young, try google — always used to say, I don’t need to make this funny stuff up, it’s simply “rip and read.”)

          But, returning to Romer, I think it’s clear that he is probably the best friend that Denver’s burgeoning cupcake industry could ever hope for.  I’m, however, unclear as to where he stands on any of the other vital pastry groups — does anyone really know what Romer’s position is on pies, strudels, danish, croissants, ding dongs or ho hos?  I think that our press has been remiss in not asking these important questions.  (I hope you’re reading this Jason, Awen . . .)

  4. Forty-three percent of registered voters surveyed for a poll released Tuesday by Public Policy Polling said they think members of the Republican majority are doing a worse job than their Democratic predecessors, while 36 percent said they’re doing a better job. Another 19 percent said they think the Republican- and Democratic-led Houses have performed about equally.

    http://www.politico.com/news/s…

    So that makes it 2 to 1 between those who think Rs are doing as badly or worse (with way more saying worse) and those (a little over just a third) who think the new GOP majority is an improvement. Another poll showed about 80% in favor of raising tax rates on the rich and tons of polls show a majority oppose cuts to social security and drastic changes to medicare.

    You’d never guess that from listening to the constant repeition in the MSM that the country is fundamentally skewed right so Obama needs to keep moving right (from the left where they say he is in spite of all evidence to the contrary) or from the still abject fear Dems have of calling the cuts before jobs priorities of the right the nonsense it is or daring to suggest that shared sacrifice ought to include the wealthy and therefore raising caps and rolling back tax breaks for the wealthiest ought to come before taking away more from the middle class, children, seniors and women.

    Is political cowardice and tremblng before R bullying so entrenched that Dems are unable to see that this is the best game changing opportunity, their best opportunity for taking back the message high ground, that’s come their way since before Reagan?  Will they snatch defeat from the jaws of victory? Or is it really not cowardice at all but just that they are only slightly less beholden to the corporate elite than the Rs?  Guess we’ll find out soon enough if there even is a party representing majority America against the oligarchs anymore.

    2. (Though if anyone’s offering the opportunity, I would gladly be Ali for a day or two, sounds like a good time)

      Anyway… I agree with David that the lawsuit is ridiculous, but at the same time I understand their frustration. One of HuffPo’s selling points was probably the fact that it had many people on the site willing to work for free. I think people feel resentful now that they realize they were being shopped around as an asset for a massive dollar value deal, when they thought they were contributing to a grassroots media publication that had grown into something massive and powerful. There was an emotional attachment to the “old HuffPo” that was somewhat severed by their sale.

      That said, the publication never offered to pay them and they never demanded it in exchange for publishing their writing where they did. You can’t agree to paint your neighbor’s house for free and then go back and say you should have been paid for it when you find out it raised the value of their home.

      1. I asked Ali as a contributor who sprang to mind and just wondered about an insider’s view.  Like PC, I can understand feelings but don’t think anyone who tries to turn those feelings into a legit lawsuit has a legal leg to stand on. Even as far as feeling put upon goes, though, Ralphie’s point, that the unpaid bloggers benefit by expanding their own audience, argues against the validity of those feelings, much less legal legitimacy

        1. Here’s the thing: People who will allow you to write for free in exchange for “exposure” are a dime a dozen. Heck, some of them will even promise “this gig could lead to future paid assignments!”

          Someone like Ali gets exposure on HuffPo partly because he already HAS exposure. People know him and when they see that he’s published there, they want to know what he has to say.

          The “Average Joe” isn’t necessarily going to get featured prominently on the site, he doesn’t already have an audience, and clickthrough rates to outside sites on big blogs like HuffPo are pretty low, so the people who do read are mostly not going to end up checking out poor Joe’s offsite blog and giving him a few ad impressions. Sure, it’s possible to build an audience on HuffPo, but it’s kind of like the old dilemma about trying to get a job that requires experience (e.g., how do you get the experience if nobody will give you a job?)

          Writers tend to be very resentful of being told that they are getting value if their byline appears somewhere important. It’s hard to buy groceries with “exposure.” So I get their point–but they have a right to be peeved with HuffPo’s community management skills, not standing for a lawsuit.

          1. When I got their email, all I wanted to know is if I had to write on a schedule.  They said no.  I said “fine” and only wrote them two articles.

            There were never any promises or strings attached.

            1. A lot of people dismiss their concerns as “Oh, you got exposure.” Which may be true for some of them–but others felt they were contributing to a grassroots movement, and they feel sold out by being traded to a big company that’s not exactly known for its staunch support of progressive causes.

  6. I had kinda lost track of when the statement of sifficiency/insufficientcy was due on the petitions to recall Nate Easly was due so I called DED and asked abuot it.

    Tomorrow is the deadline for the DED to finish checking the petiitons. I was advised that a statement would probably come out towards the end of business tomorrow.

    3. “holiday” (furlough in this case) and counted on my fingers.

      Oddly anxious about it over here.

      Just in case you hear before everyone else, be a dear and post. I know you will, but since I didn’t say anything in your official diary, thanks.

  7. Can a complete novice become a golf pro with 10,000 hours of practice?

    People, of course, have become world-class after practicing 10,000 hours, in golf and tennis and violin or anything else. But never, not in anything, according to Ericsson, has anyone done it like this: to start at this age, with no experience, and to keep statistics from the beginning, and to be so self-reflective about it, and to last even this long. Dan, Ericsson says, is “like Columbus here, sailing out in new territory.”

      2. If it turns out that talent is learned and not innate, then it means that most people can do most anything if they’re willing to put in the time & effort.

        Maybe even excel at snarky comments on blogs 🙂

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

205 readers online now

Newsletter

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