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%
April 29, 2007 04:33 AM UTC
52 Comments
That took guts.
Personnally, I don’t care what you say or who you say it to. One of the problems I have with posters here, and people in general, is they don’t know when to keep quiet. Since there are fewer Republicans posting on Pols, the Dems feel the need to refute everything they say. But often not one or two Dems reply, but many. Often the ‘debate’ is anything but.
Your diary is appreciated but I don’t think it is your kickin’ ass with facts, it is when the majority consistently beats up on the minority, those in the minority will get nasty, go away or start posting stuff just to push your buttons.
when the lib/con ration was closer to 1:1. Of course that was also when you didn’t have a login system and it was possible for one person to post under different names so who knows what the true ratio was…
On balance, discussions around here seem civil but lively, with a bit of flaming now and then. Nothing serious.
The tone of the opening post seems angry and defensive as well as offensive, and if that’s the MO of the opening poster, I can understand why there is some flaming.
Also, to say the Bush administration is corrupt because individuals within the administration and the GOP have been investigated or convicted is just plain silly, which probably offends some Repubs who don’t the good sense to laugh off the silliness. The Clinton administration had more than 100 investigations and convictions compared with only about 11 for the Bush administration.
Presidents are not baby sitters and cannot be held responsible for people who do stupid things. Heck, parents can’t even control their teens.
And don’t worry about libs piling on conservatives. It takes 20 libs to debate a conservative. Been there, done that. 🙂
“Presidents are not baby sitters and cannot be held responsible for people who do stupid things.”
So Gonzales isn’t Bush’s fault after all? Wow, the buck stops nowhere with you Republicans.
Also, you got your indictment numbers backwards. Although I agree that the Republican Congress spent much more time and money investigating Clinton than we see in today’s turnabout.
I said the other day that I mostly post at night, or during the day on an occasional day off, and I will agree that there are more dem than rep posters on here currently. But I refuse to not post when someone, or multiple people, have responded to another person. If my issue has already been addressed I will let it alone, but oftentimes my issues are not addressed and I want to bring them up. I’m not advocating dog piling, but I am advocating fleshing out issues until all are satisfied.
I am always perplexed at people who get nasty or push buttons just to do so. Why would you do that? To make a point? Get some proverbial jolly by being intentionally pissing people off? There is a difference between relaying facts that maybe uncomfortable, and attacking a person just to attack them.
By the way, good for you PR (I just cant use real names, you will always be PR).
The name itself tells everything about the kind of dialogue we should expect from the user. Let’s a remember who the liberals in history were: Jefferson, Washington, Lincoln, TRex, FDR, Kennedy, Jesus, Union workers who got you your health insurance and 40-hour week, etc…….
Of course, that won’t influence you-know-who.
The Devil?
the demise of Ford, GM, the entire American automomobile industry, etc etc
Dumbass. Apparently you forget about just how screwed up the union principle really is.
You wonder why housing cost so much? Union labor.
You wonder why Ford has been surpassed by Japanese shit. You wonder why GM has also been surpased by Japanese shit cars? Your precious unions.
DUH.
And the teachers union is doing the same thing to your kids that the automobile union has done to cars.
Dimocrats.
in other words,
DUHmocrats
What’s that saying of Sir Robin’s about not arguing with a mule? Wish I could remember the punch line!
Crank out the SUV’s. Gas is going to stay cheap forever, like in the 70s, so let’s not have a contingency plan to produce small cars or hybrids when they might be needed…
Oh shit, gas got expensive…
THAT’S the story. The unions are a convenient paper tiger.
in 1984, working in a business that had a long history with the auto companies, I was flabbergasted at the attitudes I saw. I came from Colorado and California, which gave me a perspective quite different.
Those folks still thought that chrome and artificial wood grain was very cool. It was that attitude of “We were on top once, and we certainly can’t fall” just like the British empire had one hundred years ago. If a company made a better product, they were at fault!
I quit after 8 months. They couldn’t understand why their business kept going downhill. I chose to not be frustrated any more.
Yes, the unions have some culpability in the decline of the America auto business. But ultimately, they can only make what the bosses tell them to.
An inferior product (or less than popular one) is part of the issue, but so is labor. Granted, not labor itself, but the deals that labor brokered. GM was paying out a huge amount in pensions to retirees, and not bring in enough money to pay that out and return a profit. When GM was in trouble, labor had to come in and renegoitate so the workers wouldn’t loose everything. It should be noted that Honda and Toyota both make great products, but don’t have the burdens that labor can sometimes inflict on a business.
Labor has uses, but it’s become a profession that has spun out of control (like some in the civil rights movement), and are looking to survive, not make things better.
what do you mean by this statement: “it’s become a profession that has spun out of control (like some in the civil rights movement)”
Is that labor unions seem more interested in self preservation than actually getting anything done. I have the same view towards certain elements of the civil rights movement (Mainly….Al Sharpton, and to a lesser degree Jesse Jackson). So when I say that it’s a profession that’s spun out of control, I mean so in the fact that it’s become a profession, not a service. As such, people like Sharpton take issue with a legitimate firing because the fire-ee (Is that a word?) is a minority. Such things discredit whatever authority they do or did have.
As opposed to confusing you more.
I think unions get poo-pooed on because of this idea of preservation. I dont think they arent getting anything done, but I do think they are being hamstrung by government, industry, and bad pr, or at least not as good pr as the companies where the workers are.
Was it ever more a service than a profession? If it was, I dont see how it could not have evolved into a profession. And how is it out of control? Attempting to unionize Wal-Mart workers is not some sort of revolutionary idea. Is organization and protection so scary that it is out of control?
You will have to point to a specific example of Al Sharpton taking issue with a minority being fired. But whats so wrong with Sharpton or Jackson or whoever using their standing to raise issues they find to be discriminatory. When they take issue, and I think it is the same with unions, they get disparaged in the media as malcontents; they are portrayed as zealots of ridiculous and unwinnable causes and as such they shouldnt be taken seriously.
I’m going to be hard pressed to find the newpaper article from this, I heard about this some years ago….
But there was a 911 dispatcher in Detroit who was fired because she didn’t dispatch police to the scene of a beating. She thought it was a hoax. The kid getting beaten end up dying, and she was fired.
Jackson claimed racism.
I think the reason Unions and the so-called civil rights movements get a bad rap is that they seem to over-blow little issues to keep themselves in the limelight, which underminds them when a legitimate issue comes up. To me, wanting to unionize Walmart employees is more about union preservation than actually trying to do some good. Or civil rights leaders who get upset when a white person uses the “n” word, but is relatively silent (until recently) when a black person uses it, or trying to disparage the Duke guys (sure, they may not have rapped her, but what were they doing looking at naked girls?)
To me, this sort of thing is more about preserving power rather than providing a service.
Correlate unionizing Wal-Mart workers as a negative (ie preservation) rather than positive (ie wanting the workers to have reasonable pay and benefits). And why is preservation a bad thing? If unions lose their power then there is really no group that is for the protection of workers. Is that a good thing?
Is a bad thing because covering your butt leads to bad policy. Look at the last republican congress who was more concerned about retaining power rather than solving problems. Or teacher’s unions who balk at any sort of school reform.
For the most part, I’m a freemarket republican. I don’t think that free markets will correct everything, but I think they do a good job for the most part. Is there a place for Unions? Probably. But I work for a company that offers 401k contributions, health benefits to everyone (gay or straight), paid vacation, dental, eye care, pregancy leave, etc, etc, etc, and we don’t have unions. Unions aren’t nessicary to advocating for benefits.
that your company offers such benefits because of unions. Non union firms had to start offering them in order to compete for good workers and probably as a pre-emptive strike against any unionization at the workplace. That isn’t the whole story, of course, but it’s a major factor.
But so could free markets. It’s also worth noting that I would be fired if I tried to form a union. But we have other avenues for voicing concerns.
Also, isn’t true that it wasn’t Walmart employees that were pushing for unionization?
I believe in some cases the employees are behind it, in others union people came in trying to organize – I don’t believe they found a hostile reception either. But I haven’t read up on much of that so I could be completely off the mark.
As far as free market resulting in benefits, all you need to do is look at what American workers got before collective bargaining became legal and what they got after. I’ll admit that I’m not a labor history expert, but I don’t believe pension funds and employer-paid health and life insurance were around for the average worker prior to the Great Depression and the subsequent legalization of unions and collective bargaining. Somewhere along the line most regular employees of sizable companies began to expect these benefits and they got them. Of course America peaked economically from 1950 – 1970 which is when I believe most of this came about – American business could afford to offer these benefits to their employees. So the market may well have come up with it without nonunion employees noticing what union employees were getting. But that seems kinda far fetched to me.
They don’t want to mess with it.
Don’t get me wrong, I think that unions can play a positive role. Free market theory isn’t perfect in it’s application, (just like anything else) and the most compelling arguement for unions is that in a free market world, unions were the supply for the demand.
My problem with unions is that the demand isn’t as great as it once was, and in an effort to achieve self preservation, they have to create the illusion of demand to justify their supply. It creates bad policy and an unnessicary burden on businesses which in turn, hurts our economy
To try and understand where you are coming from. And to be honest with you I dont get it. I think the fundamental disconnect is you using economic terms when they dont apply.
Forgive my ignorance, but is there another term for “Free Market Theory?” Do you mean pure capitalism, or is there some new idea that is being floated and I just missed it?
I think you are drawing correlations where none exist, or they exist only in theoretical instances that are drawn upon in an effort to justify the demise of unions, which is an illogical conclusion. So what if the demand isnt as strong as it used to be. There is still demand. And trying to couch it in simple economic terms is something of a straw man, in my opinion. I guess my main point is this: unions are a necessary protector of workers, whether you are a member or not. Also, with current and historical administrations doing their best to end unionization, along with larger corporations, unions trying to maintain and preserve worker protections is a noble endeavor. Unions burdening business is a misnomer; businesses do enough to burden themselves.
..that management cratered to the union demands, knowing full bloody well that by the time the demands were creating a problem, they were retired or dead themselves.
And why shouldn’t the union demand things for their members? That’s the purpose, as you well know.
Management always chose an adversarial relationship instead of putting union members on the boards, for instance. More flies with honey than vinegar. I think the good labor relations that the Japanese car makers have here in America proves that there was an alternative.
But I don’t think Honda allows workers to unionize
but their workforce is partially unionized in Japan. Go figure.
This will end one of two ways: 1) you will not respond, or 2) it will be a total flamefest. With that in mind, onward we push.
What did the union do that brought down the american auto industry? If you ask me it is the lack of quality cars, zero future vision, poor management, and exhorbitant compensation for executives.
Housing prices? I see that more as a supply-demand issue. Couple that with a desire to live in the nicest neighborhoods in the biggest houses with the most expensive accoutrements. More demand than meets the supply hence a price increase.
My 92 honda accord with 230K miles on it runs great. I get 30 mpg. Compare that to my first car, a 89 lincoln continental, that had to get a new transmission at about 100k, horrible suspension, and a odometer that worked occasionally. I think my gas mileage was about 15-20 miles per gallon. I also had a 90 accord that ran great until it was donated to a charity. Also, many “japanese” cars are made right here in america. They are also subject to unions so…?
Keep on bashing unions. Clearly, you have no evidence, no clear thought, and no idea what you are talking about.
Can I use your comment for a blog entry I’m writing elsewhere? It’s perfect.
Responsible for the high costs of housing.
Colorado is not real big on unions in the construction industry. Go look at a housing project-its mostly illegals from Mexico doing the work-not union workers.
housing prices compared to the rest of the country?
One of the reasons I moved back to Colorado after living in Seattle for 8 years was the cost of housing. The house my wife and I own cost the same as a one bedroom one bath condo (or two bedroom if I looked out in the burbs). Housing costs seems to be pretty reasonable to me.
It was poor form for him to accuse, and not substantiate, for example, that Sir Robin is a “socialist”, or whatever it was about “socialist posts”. It’s when either side, R or D, takes unfounded shots that bothers me.
Apologies are not quickly forthcoming from some quarters. Me, I’m still waiting for an apology from DDHGQ for racist comments from two months ago; but I’m not naive enough to think he’ll come through. Race baiting is, apparently, par for the course there. LIAS is no better. There are more reasonable conservative voices here; some just deserve to be ignored.
Civility begets civility. Lauren and myself have had many a back and forth over issues and we have always kept it respectful. Xenophon, another republican, has a great intellect and he always keeps it civil. The list goes on, but the point is being a jackass may raise the ire of some of the time, but after a while, they become just another ridiculous, loudmouth with a computer.
I didn’t see the post, but I don’t know that SR himself would be adverse to being identified as a socialist. Maybe, and if so, know that my post isn’t an insult, just an observation.
Lias is that kind of guy.
I didn’t see the thread. No offense intended.
LIAS should apologize for his comments as soon as Dems apologize for their biased bashing. In the last week I’ve seen Dems here refer to others as ignorant, Nazis, morons, stupid, unprincipled and the list goes on…
I wrote to Robin once about how much he bugs me. More than one Dem came back and said, ‘if he bothers you, don’t read his posts’. Same advice back to those that don’t like LIAS, Empire, Dr. Dob – don’t like what they write, don’t read it.
You are kind of an enigma to me. I combination of wit, warmth, experience, intelligence, and bigotry. I could spend my time Googling Dem corruption and probably come up with an impressive list, but what good would that do? Would you change parties? Of course not. We affiliate with a party based on how close it best represents our own opinions about the role of government in our lives. We don’t join or leave a party based on its bad apples. If you feel the need to expose Republican corruption, knock yourself out. The convicted bums who give the party a black eye deserve the scorn. It’s statements like, “My goal is to get Americans to understand that in the big picture, in the long term, the Republicans are not only not your friend, they have become lower than scum” is where I think you go awry. You extrapolate the few to the whole with that broad brush of yours, and it diminishes your positions. If every political party, church, vocation, etc. were judged solely on their worst members, well, we’d all be scum!
I applaud your bravery and I hope no one eggs your house after this:)
PR, we live quite near each other. You were plenty accountable enough for me before you listed your information. I disagree with you on 80% of issues. Vehemently. I think you’re misguided and bitter, blinded by partisanship.
Right, well, me too I guess.
The only people that would ever make use of your personal information are the freaks that don’t deserve to have it.
Anyway, please be careful putting your info out there – like I said, I don’t need it to respect the legitimacy of any argument you pose. Have a great day.
Of all the posters on POLS, you and Zapp are my favorites. Why? Thoughful, issue based presentations of your ideas.
Nice!
as my Dad would say, “You’re all right”!
…that you pay special attention to the word “become.” I have repeatedly said that I want the Republicans like you, Lauren, to take back your party. I have also repeatedly said that the problem is not the Republican voter like yourself, as the politicians that they elect.
Regardless, there is a strong history of Republicans making lousy presidents, lousy for Jose Seispack, since after Lincoln. Grant, Harding, Hoover, Reagan, the Bushes. Many of them set the standard for corruption until this misadministration. And I”ll add, Clinton, who was by no means exempt from my scorn, he was a great Republican president. Teddy Roosevelt, the Republican, was a great progressive. So, sometimes the titular shoes don’t easily fit. Eisenhower and Ford were overall decent presidents, even if lackluster.
Despite efforts from the right to get Americans to believe that the Dems are just as guilty of corruption as the Republicans, history just cannot support this contention.
See Paul Krugman’s column today in The Snooze about our extreme income inequality, far exceeding The Gilded Age. It is trends like this that I find so upsetting since history shows that democracy works best with a strong middle class, and progressive policies are needed to foster that middle class. Republican policies encourage a two tier society.
I do appreciate your kind words….
Paul
I’d also suggest some anger therapy.
Taught history once.
What did I say that you take issue with? Historically speaking?
“Wealth and Democracy” by former Republican and Nixon speech writer Kevin Phillips was a great read.
The internet and its anonymity make it easy for people to get too personal and strident. I have tried to tone down my own comments against my favorite Congressman in recent weeks.
I stay anonymous because after I wrote a letter to a local paper using my name, my WIFE was on receiving end of some sicko who yelled and screamed at her over the phone that we were traitors, the “Muslim monkeymen” were coming to get us, etc. etc. It left her really shaken and worried for our kids’ safety (we have two little ones).
On my Tancredo Watch blog and related website I stay anonymous both for that reason and because I want the focus to be on Tancredo, but of course it’s relatively easy for people to do “whois” searches to find out who’s the registered owner of a domain name. Recently some pro-Tancredo goon wrote to me in triumph that he’d “discovered” my name and was “reporting it to the authorities”! (He assumed I was an ‘illegal alien,’ I guess, because of course only illegal aliens oppose Tom Tancredo…) It’s crap like that that makes people want to stay anonymous.
Thanks for a provocative diary!
I will do my best to improve the Party…when I’m not calling escort services for those late night massages:)
I wish I could ignore history. Like the fact that Jefferson and Franklin were classical liberals, not the abomination called liberalism today. Or how about selling military secrets to the Chinese, hiding supeonaed(sp) documents in the bedroom closet, storing 100K in kickbacks in a freezer, sticking a penis in an interns mouth, shady land deals and nepotism in Nevada, violating the Logan Act…etc and etc?
Oh wait, those aren’t examples of Democrat hypocrisy, those are examples of Democrat prerogatives. I guess you’re right, Republicans are more corrupt.
Don’t throw stones at your neighbors’, if your own windows are glass. -Ben Franklin (August 1736)
Please explain why todays liberalism is an abomination. How do todays liberals differ from Jefferson and Franklin? Explain how suspending habeus corpus, opening U.S. citizens e-mails and telephone records do not invade our privacy. Explain why shooting rubber bullets into peaceful demonstrations is a Democratic ideal! Explain why the environment, people and pets, are allowed to be poisoned, while the FDA looks away is the proper use of taxpayer dollars. Explain why the republican controlled government over the last dozen years or so gets a pass for their misguided, immoral, unethical and criminal behavior seemingly is OK with you!
Waiting.
When I was a kid growing up in the heartland my Mother used to say “everything in moderation”. In my expanded years I have found that this is a truth.
I no longer have a political affiliation because there is corruption and stupidity on both the left and the right.
Fanatical liberalism or consrvativism are both dangerous, as dangerous as any fanatical Muslim, Hindu, Catholic, Southern babtist,man, woman, or what have you.
Hey, just try to do the right thing and be civil about it. But while doing the right thing try very hard not to diminish my Constitutional rights anymore.