U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(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) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
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%
August 21, 2006 04:47 PM UTC
51 Comments
No matter what plan or how many plans Both Ways Bob devises, Colorado voters won’t have faith it will ever occur, because of his continual flip flops. He just can’t be trusted, in my opinion, to do what he says.
Everyone keeps misreporting this angle. It’s not just that Bob opposed C and D that Dems and Business R’s are getting behind Ritter, it’s that Beauprez can’t reasonably articulate why he opposed C and D or how, exactly, he would have made government work without the suspension of TABOR.
Though I appreciate reporters repeating the point that the party is in disarray and divided because of the 2005 tax-grab (and we are), that’s not the reason Beauprez will lose this race. If he could make a reasonable explanation, argument, or establish a pro-business agenda, then he’d be doing just fine right now.
Instead, he keeps trying to avoid specifics and refuses to talk nuts ‘n bolts with these business and industry leaders. Beauprez keeps working the “I’ll be there to veto” angle while Ritter (rightfully) counters with the “then you tell me how to do better” argument.
Say Governor Ritter three times. Click your heels together, and pray for a Party salvation.
Last year during the C & D campaign, former state senate president John Andrews held a news conference endorsing the no position on C and D. During that news conference he was asked whether if C failed more additional and massive cuts in higher education and transportation would be required. He at least was honest. He agreed the state budget and especially higher education and transportation would suffer additional drastic cuts if C failed. That’s what makes Beauprez’s position indefensible. He absolutely categorically is refusing to acknowledge reality. He was against C and D and therefore supported the closing of our community colleges, exponential increases in tuition at our four year institutions and drastic cuts in our transportation budget. His position defies common sense, economic sense and harms our national security.
He now states that he never said the state didn’t need the money but that C and D didn’t really solve anything. Yet, neither last Fall or presently has he offered any realistic alternative. But if C would have been defeated we would be closing eleven of our thirteen community colleges and tuition at our four year colleges and universities would be skyrocketing to the level of private ones. Plus the budget to build and maintain our roads would be drastically cut back. Even with these facts staring the voters and presumably Beauprez in the face, he continues to advocate a rollback of “C.” He has a very basic problem. Last year Governor Owens looked out the window as did the Democrat General Assembly and they in an act of bipartisanship faced reality; Beauprez and the right wing looked out the window and saw only ideology. Ideology is only a starting point. After that one needs to look at the facts and deal with reality and sometimes ironclad ideology doesn’t answer the questions posed or offer a realistic policy choice but for Beauprez the square peg always goes through the round hole no matter how much he shatters the square peg.
His position defies the facts and therefore he doesn’t have a realistic policy to offer.
Real Republicans (RRs) are going for Ritter because they refuse to support the anti-social positions of BB and his fellow Repulsive Republican Radicals (RRRs).
State contractors and vendors who claim to be Republicans are going where they think the money will be—Bill Ritter. They are only concerned about their bottom lines, not about the state.
Both Caldera and Kaufman are correct about what’s happening. Unfortunately, the liberal bias of the Rocky put Referendum C as the pivot point in the RR defections, because the Rocky supported C. This is a clear case of Rocky left wing bias in the way the story was reported.
RRs voted against C. Contractor Republicans voted for it.
These are the most important graphs in the story. The liberal reporter buried them at the end of his story. Stuart Seers missed the lede by a mile, as usual.
The real lede:
BoB Beauprez, the Republican candidate for governor, apparently is losing the support of both unaffiliated voters and moderate Republicans as well as the support of the state’s contractors and vendors who usually support the candidate they think is most likely to win.
Moderate Republicans and unaffiliated voters who apparently are defecting to the Democratic Party’s candidate, Bill Ritter, say they don’t agree with Beauprez’ positions on abortion, gay marriage and other social issues.
Republicans who run businesses that contract with state seem to be putting their bets on Bill Ritter, who has a 10 point lead in the latest polls.
Political analysts say that if Beauprez fails to bring back the Republicans and unaffiliated voters who don’t like his positions on social issues and the Republicans who do business with the state, he will have a tough time winning in November.
From the conclusion of today’s story in the Rocky:
The Denver chamber of commerce should rename itself the chamber of corporate welfare,” said Jon Caldara, president of the Independence Institute in Golden. “Just because they wear neckties doesn’t mean they don’t want corporate handouts.”
Caldara said business groups in the state support more spending on things like roads because they hope to win lucrative government contracts.
Beauprez’s allegiance to causes championed by Caldara has alarmed many business people. Beauprez was the first person to sign a proposed ballot initiative that would have undone much of Ref C. He also endorsed Initiative 38, which would make it easier for voters to overturn government decisions. After an outcry from the business community, Beauprez withdrew his endorsement of 38.
Former Republican state Rep. Bill Kaufman, of Loveland, said Beauprez’s alliance with Caldara prompted him to endorse Ritter.
“I said, ‘That’s it, I’m done,'” Kaufman said. “The people who run the Republican Party today don’t care about business. What this party is about now is God, guns, gays and abortion. They don’t care about education, health care or transportation. They think cutting taxes solves all problems.”
Like almost every other paper in the state, because without it the State couldn’t have met its budget obligations, and because state tax revenue as a portion of population and income growth had been unable to keep pace with need.
There’s a reason that almost every school district in the state de-Bruced a long time ago: TABOR was broken. At least now we can keep a public higher education system, keep current roads in good repair, and maintain some semblance of a mental health system.
People are leaving the Beauprez camp because of his continued swing to the right, yes; but businesses that don’t get government contracts still supported Ref. C, because they valued roads, educated workforces, and safe neighborhoods. And they don’t support Beauprez because they see someone more willing to cut taxes than to support a sound society.
While the media and Dems are trying to make C the issue so they can raise taxes after they win, the public has forgotten about C.
If I were BB, I’d be hammering at the Dems’ determination to raise taxes.
C wasn’t enough for Ritter. He can’t wait to raise your taxes and pay off the contractors who are contributing to his campaign.
Taxpayers, yes. Contractors no.
Taxman Ritter Rides Again.
Bill Ritter will raise your taxes just when the economy needs a tax cut.
Keep employers out of Colorado, elect Bill Ritter to raise your taxes.
Bill Ritter will sell Colorado to employers by promising to raise their taxes.
HIgh taxes reduce employment. Elect Bill Ritter.
while I agree with most of what you said here I must disagree with your first line.
I have not forgotten about Ref C and the way it BARELY passed. And yes, I am a sore loser when more taxes are taken from me.
I still have my “If C Wins, You Lose” bumper sticker on my Ford. And I will not take it off.
It still pisses me off that a tax increase was brought to us as something it wasn’t, and all “the sky is falling” threats about dead babies in the streets……….if C & D didn’t pass.
Let us watch as the next election comes up, how many more tax increases we are asked to accept.
100% of our income is not even enough in the land of Oz called Denver.
Doubt it. Doubt they care.
Only activists feel one way or another.
I was againt C but probably will vote for Ritter, although I hate the thought of Dems having total control of the state. They’ll ruin it, for sure. But we can get them out in 2008 with some Real Republicans. If not, oh well.
many if not most voters have a short memory. Tax increase advocates (Dems/liberals) count on that.
Wouldn’t it be great if before any other tax increases can be put to the people, a list of all previous tax increases would need to be provided to each voter? Along with who asked for the increase, which party they were with, and what the increase was to be used for? Just a friendly reminder? (Show me one politician that would go for that one)
Maybe only go back 20 years say.
(Of course there would be some imaginitive new ways to put it to the people. Maybe call it Ref C&D.)
I remember. Maybe not ever stinking tax increase request but that is because there are so many that one loses count.
We pay enough in taxes now. We paid enopugh in taxes years ago. Enough is enough. Especially with fuel and other prices as high as they are.
I filled my diesel truck yesterday….$3.26 a gallon.
$100.00 and it wasn’t even empty………..
The anti C & D people always amaze me. Bill Ritter can’t raise taxes. Under TABOR a vote of the electorate is required to do so.
Second, lets see your true colors. Without the passage of “C”, eleven of the thirteen community collegws would have closed their doors and in five years tuition at CU and CSU would have increased to the levels of private universities like Notre Dame and Harvard. Do you folks who opposed C and D believe that our community colleges should be closed down? Do you believe our public univeristies and colleges should charge tuition at the same rate as private ones which most parents can’t afford? You complain all day long about taxes but answer the questions above and answer me this, specifically, what government services etc. do you agree are legitimate and at what level do you agree the public should fund them? Once these questions are answered, a rational discussion about government priorities and funding can take place. Government has always had a revenue side and an expenditure side. It requires that you take a position on both.
And don’t throw-up the usual waste, fraud and abuse red herring. If you believe there is watste fraud and abuse, then please be specific and name it but keep in mind higher education and transportation budgets suffered 40% cuts over the past five years.
I await your specific answers to these questions.
TABOR? So that part of your arguement doesn’t hold water.
Second, I could give a rat’s ass about colleges. If someone wants in a college, borrow the money, save the money, whatever, and enter. Or get a job and fuckin forget about it.
Don’t play the poor colleges game with me. I have been working since I was 14 and do quite well thanks. College is a luxury.
#2 Government is here to provide for our defense, to maintain our basic infrastructure, and to keep law and order.
Now, if you want to you can donate as much as you want to your local and state government. Nobody is stopping you. Donate all of your money if you want to. Maybe you can get some of your liberal friends to do the same. You will feel real good about yourself I’m sure.
But keep your hands out of my wallet.
Good argument, “I could give a rat’s ass about colleges!”
Glad to see that is apart of the conservative agenda to eliminate education, and while you are creating a hit list, how about eliminating health care, public utilities, public highways, and list could go.
However, I think you forgot to include that our government (being WE THE PEOPLE) is here to “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”
America can only destroyed from within, and if that happens will be done by the ultra-right-wing nuts who want to trash the constitution, create a theocracy, and privatize the entire system, for profit and power.
That is not patriotic.
opinion about colleges slick.
If you want to go to college, fine go ahead. But it cost money. Don’t use my mine. Use your own.
Same goes for health insurance. Get a job and buy it.
I know of a couple that quit working where I do after some 23 years or so each. Man and wife.
They are now self employed and found decent insurance for the same price as my company was getting it for on a group policy.
Your version of We The People is apparently more of a USSR version of society.
What ever happened to self reliance? Ask for nothing, expect nothing?
Our national security depends on our economic health and that means providing the economy with hightly trained individuals, now more than ever. Without university and college trained individuals, our economy will falter and we son’t bea ble to defend ourselves. Who do you think invents all the weapons we use to defend ourselves with – kindergarteners?
You still need to answer my questions. Which government services would you agree should we keep and at what level would you fund each one. Your response thus far as been to evade the questions or do you think we should simply end government including services such as fresh water to your home, sewer services etc. The so called conservatives simply don’t want to answer these questions because if they actually reviewed what government provides and what services they actually receive from government they would realize they aren’t as self-sufficient as they would like to think. But if you want your water and sewer service cut-off because “gummit is evil,” I
m sure that can be arranged but please answer the questions first.
The government is to provide defense. This is priority and should receive top funding.
The government is here to provide and take care of our basic infrastructure. This should receive second on the list of funding.
State and local government should take care of making sure our roads are driveable, and our water is drinkable. We pay enough f%&*$ing taxes to them now.
But the US government IS NOT here to pay for people to go to college. It IS NOT here to babysit lazy loafers on welfare either.
If I could wave a magic wand and cut government spending, welfare and most every other social program would be on the cutting board under close scrutiny.
SS would be privatized and vouchers would be mandatory.
Socialism is for Cuba, not the USA.
Republicans have traditionally been aligned with the big contractors – including Beauprez. I’ve seen little to no indication that Ritter wants to raise taxes more; your statement is without any basis in fact.
PS – we have the 2nd-lowest state taxes in the nation. I doubt even a significant tax increase would raise us to anywhere above the middle of the pack. And New York and California certainly don’t have a shortage of businesses, despite their tax rates. The tax thing is a herring.
Total taxes paid in CO are about the same as in IL, I think. That’s not low taxes.
Remember, CO has to compete with other states that are more centrally located, closer to sources of raw materials and to customers than we are.
Sure, we have recreation and scenery, but that doesn’t cut it when bringing employers to the state, which has little room for new employers, imho.
Our housing costs are out of site, our medical costs are relatively high, and it costs a fortune to commute or go on vacation via DIA. So we have to keep taxes competitive to offset our disadvantages. There are reasons we have little manufacturing here: High property taxes; location; high costs of living; religious fanaticism. And the prospective swing to a Democratic government hardly will encourage any bottomline-thinking CEO to bring his company to CO.
The state’s best prospects are small non-manufacturing employers whose owners want to live here and can move, if they want to, not large employers reporting to shareholders and venture capitalists.
The problem is that the politicians in this state are anti-small business and keep pandering to the billion dollar companies that want their tourism businesses subsidized by the state. Lots of mistakes are being made and will be.
Our state taxes are the same as IL? I doubt it. If so, we’re absolutely the most atrocious state in the union at spending our money.
Here‘s a PDF from the State, dated ’03 – Colorado is 2nd lowest in the nation in collected state tax revenue.
Apparently you have never lived nor communicated with anyone who has lived in New York, Connecticut or Massachusetts.
I lived in Rochester, NY for many years. There’s lots of waste there, but they’re spending money on a lot more (sometimes useless) things than we are. Where AS’s statement about CO taxes ~== IL taxes true, then given Colorado’s comparatively limited services, we’d be pretty darned wasteful.
Your number on state taxes is very misleading. Because, we collect a lot of our taxes on the local lever (especially for schools). Our local level in taxation is in the top 5 nationally which brings our total tax burden to about the middle.
I provided my source…
Phoenix’s source showed that in terms of total state and local tax burden is 43d out of the 50 states. Not exactly the middle, although I agree that is the more relevant number than looking at just state taxes.
Folks like Gecko are happy to enjoy the benefits of our society, as long as they don’t have to contribute to anything that doesn’t DIRECTLY benefit themselves. Providing for the common good is probably too altruistic a concept for him to understand – but then, that’s why he should have gone to college…
if not more. That is why I am against blatant raising of taxes at will.
If you liberal tax loving individuals like it so much, why don’t YOU pay more? Why are you trying to get everyone else to pay more?
I don’t understand your blind faith in your elected officials.
It sounds more and more like you really wish this was another USSR. We make fun of you libs that way but I really think it must be true. Otherwise why would anyone lovingly want to throw billions at a government knowing that next year they will only ask for more.
Kinda like feeding the glutton………
I thought the accusation was that Ref. “C” was a clandestine tax increase. Now you’re saying it was a blatant tax increase? Trying to have it both ways? You’re as bad as Beauprez!
does it matter. It was shoved down our necks by an ever so slight margin. So be it. That is the American way and I can live with that.
What I am still and always will be upset about is that the pro people still insist it is NOT a tax increase. Funny. They kept that money that was taken from us instead of giving it back.
That is a tax increase.
Call it what it is. Be a man about it………
Kind of like the way George W. Bush was shoved down our throats by 49% of the electorate in 2000? Or that sweeping mandate of 51% he got in ’04?
What’s the threshold for legitimacy? 53%? 60%? 75%? A five-to-four Supreme Court split?
Both the U.S. and the Colorado constitutions state that government is being formed to “promote the general welfare.” Its right there next to defense. Some of us think that providing publicly-funded higher education (for example) promotes the general welfare. You’re free to disagree, but to tell yourself that anyone who thinks otherwise belongs in the Soviet Union or loves paying taxes is plain b.s.
the government should pay for college, my opinion is not.
Pay for college yourself. What is wrong or so hard to understand about that?
My babysitter was my mom. Not my government.
Students can’t always afford to pay for college, no matter how many jobs they take.
You pay for it then if it is so important to ya. Start a massive drive for funding and donate all you want.
Leave me out of it.
So your plan is to let rich worthless fucks list GWB go to college, and everyone else can eat cake?
My lord, man, that’s about as bass ackwards as it gets. You want our country to be strong? Then send the best and brightest to college and pay for it by charging higher tuition to retards like GWB.
and pay for it. Get a loan and pay for it. Whatever.
Why should I pay for everyone else’s kids through my taxes when I already pay for my own kid?
I took out a loan to pay the full tuition for my one son that wanted to go. The other two sons got jobs and could care less about college.
I didn’t ask you all to help me pay for it, and I never will.
I have never taken unemployement, I have never taken welfare, never used food stamps, or any other social programs. That is because I was raised to fend for myself. To not make a family until I could afford to do so. And if times got tough, I worked even harder to make ends meet.
So again, college is a luxury that if one wants, one should pay for. One way or the other. But not by me. I’m paying for my own……..
And I mean that seriously. The same is true for me and my family.
But what about people who don’t have good parents to teach them about self reliance, self discipline, and the value of hardwork? Where are they supposed to learn those values? Are you saying that you don’t care at all about the people who, through no fault of there own and try as they might with the skills that they have, just can’t fight their way out of a bad situation?
That seems mighty cold hearted to me.
don’t teach them proper values and they don’t have the resources then they can apply for student loans. If they can’t get one from a lending institution then maybe they can get one from the government? I have heard of government provided student loans before so I would assume that they can get one from Uncle Sam. And if they default, the government can track their SS numbers and take their money back out of future payroll checks?
I don’t know, I am just flat against giving money away. College is not necessary. My son is the only person in my whole family, mother’s and father’s sides as far back as I know, who is going or went to college.
And we aren’t a bunch of dumb hicks. We all have been very successful in each of our careers. (One exception is a nephew that likes drugs)
So my point again is college is a luxury, not a necessity.
If your son went to a public university, then “full” tuition pays for less than 1/3 of the actual costs. That means that I subsidized your son’s education. And you know what, I’m glad I could help you and your son out. I know that in the long run, you and I are both going to benefit from my helping your son to get a quality education.
If you sent your children to public schools, I certainly hope that you have seen fit to repay the government for this welfare (plus interest, of course). I, of course, am again quite happy that I was able to help provide your children with quality educations (and I don’t have any children).
You can consider any of “your” money that you lost out on because of Ref C as partial repayment for the rest of us subsidizing your family.
It’s about what’s good for the country, and I think our country its citizens are best served if we give our best and brightest the highest quality education possible.
It’s an investment Gecko. Our society invests in people, and the investment is paid back ten-fold. Moreover, if you believe what our founding fathers had to say, it’s necessary for a healthy democracy.
Well-educated citizens as a group pay more into welfare, medicaid, social security, etc, than they draw from it. They are skilled people who ensure our nation stays competitive, and as consumers they create many secondary jobs. You really want to turn these people into wards of the state? Would you rather pay $20k – $30k a year for each of their prison beds?
And why draw the line at higher ed, Gecko? Why not get rid of free K-12 education while you’re at it? I don’t mean replace public education with vouchers. I mean get rid of public financing for K-12 education entirely. That’s what you want for higher ed, right? I’ll bet you would have saved a tidy sum in taxes if everyone was responsible for their own K-12 education, right? I mean, why should anyone aspire to be anything more than a ranch hand? If they’re poor, tough luck. School is for hard-working rich boys like GWB. Of course, your property values would plummet to nothing because no one in their right mind would want to live in such a place. But hey, you seem more interested in saving a couple of bucks in taxes today rather than investing in a strong, healthy, self-sufficient society tomorrow.
That was the dilemma we faced with Ref C. Fortunately an ever so slim majority of people had the good sense to see beyond a couple of years of paltry rebate checks and voted to protect their children’s future, not to mention their property values. They could have chosen to emulate Mississippi but rejected it. If you’re really interested in living in a society that doesn’t value education, there’s a lot of cheap housing in Mississippi calling your name.
Public education good. Libertarian anarchism bad.
Great colleges attract great buisnesses and great buisnesses promote stability and grouth which in turn benefits us all. The reason that H.P. and other well paying buisnesses are attracted to the front range is that CU and CSU are putting out a top knotch educated labor force. Take away the public funding and students will go out of state to a more affordable institution, and then you will see buisness leave because they will have to go out of state to recruit good help (very costly). When these guys leave then that effects us all–even you Gecko…I may be wrong, but I seem to recall that you are a buisness owner? What would happen to the building industry and other blue collar occupations if the H.P’s and other tech’s left?
and I’m not a business owner but have worked for the same company for 22 years.
I have watched the high tec industries come and go in Colorado Springs faster than most people change their bed sheets. HP is a shell of what it was. Intel moved in to town, built a HUGE building and shut down before it even started.
Who cares. I have a friend that works in that field. She has had more jobs at different places than any five people put together. Not because she is a bad employee but because these companies pack up and leave before their roots ever take.
High tec is a joke. Maybe in silicon valley it is somewhat stable, but not here.
Gecko, I did not mean to imply that you are a dope, and I apologise for the implication(I was hearing a Homer Simpson), and also for mistaking you as a business owner.
But my point still stands. Businesses rely on quality higher education. Dismantle higher ed and say by-by buisness.
It is great that you paid for your sons education. I borrowed and am now paying for mine. But the fact is that both of these “educations” were subsadised by the state. So you realy did not pay ALL of your sons education. If you truly believe that one should pay for it all, I am sure that the state would be happy to let you reimburse them.
Gecko, have you ever posted so much, or generated so much response? If Colopols decides to counter “Lamborn has godlike quality”s decree that’s he’s “poster of the week” for life and open it up for competition, I nominate you just because that’s a marathon performance.
Looks like Beauprez’s not the only one hurting for contributions. Caldera has been a nut case for quite a while, and I would imagine things are now coming home to roost. He’s not quite bright enough to sort out that the only reason why he has a pit to hiss in is the chamber of corporate welfare licensed him to do that. No one is going to pay to listen to him on his own. Well, maybe Pete will find him a job washing bottles.
Oh, and whether you like it or not the law says I am a Real Republican, I voted for C, and I ain’t changin registration. Gecko, see your doctor before you have a stroke; you can’t handle any more brain damage.
the Rocky has now become some left-wing, Marxist-Leninist propaganda organ? ROFLMAOPIMP You people view things from a pretty warped perspective.
It’s news pages are run by lefties. It’s editorial page pretends to be conservative, but it support big government intervention in our bed rooms and private lives. That doesn’t make it Pravda, for crying out loud. Just the local version of the LA Times and Washington Post.
Skeptic, what world do you live in?
Don’t you?
News release at Ritter’s website.
“I want Colorado to be the first state that businesses think of when considering relocation and the last state they would ever want to leave,” Ritter said. “I will make it my duty as Governor to market Colorado as the best state to do business.” — Bill Ritter
I’ve commented on each part of it here:
http://coloradopols….
“Beauprez also called for re-examining the way the state rents office space and purchases goods and services.”
Talk to the Owens’ people. It was called New Century Colorado, and they certainly had enough copies floating around. Their guy to spearhead all that, Marc “Visionary’ Holtzman, didn’t pan out. BWB could maybe build bridges and offer him a job, although Marc certainly knows nothing about technology, education, and seemingly finance so it’s hard to identify where he could make a contribution (not that inability got in the way of some of the other Owens’ appointments). Ah, loyalty to the party just doesn’t pay the way it used to.
Oh, and didn’t we do the Bond thing with T-rex. Something about it really being debt after all. Odd for a fiscal conservative banker… well, odd for a fiscal conservative anyway.