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%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
May 24, 2007 03:27 PM UTC

Thursday Open Thread

  • 51 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

But if she said…then that would mean…oh boy.

Tweet
Share

Comments

51 thoughts on “Thursday Open Thread”

  1. Preschool tax finally creeped to approval last November….so we’re paying, but the city is not delivering…who knows where or when…

    Is Adele Phelan, who is in charge of the preschool setup, still a nun? does anyone know the link to get the names of the people appointed to all the boards and commissions running the preschool?  What about the 100 A+Committee…..Denver is the “meetingist place”…..but does anything ever come out of it?….Other than huge fees to facilitators…we should buy stock in flip flop charts and those button thingamajigs…..

    Politics in Denver is played on school grounds and in church basements…..makes u appreciate the honesty of Adams County and Colorado Springs…

    4. *[new]  Judicial Arrogance
      I think any lawyer can tell numerous stories of judges acting arrogantly and, sometimes, unlawfully.

      There were many instances in my career of judges simply disregarding the law because they did not like the result it would lead to. This is a very common problem with state trial court judges, who don’t have to explain the reasons for rulings in writing. I had one case where a judge even told me that, as much as she would have liked to rule in my client’s favor and as much as she thought the law required it, she couldn’t because the lawyer on the other side was a big campaign contributor. I had other cases where the judge simply didn’t read the motions at all. That is really common. Judges have pre-conceived notions (wow, a lawyer with a closed mind, that’s a shocker) and often aren’t willing to read or listen to anything that runs counter to it.

      Judges are also largely unaccountable. It is judges who decide whether judges broke the rules. The public is largely excluded from those deliberations, too. And the whole thing that lets appeals courts issue “unpublished” decisions is just an excuse to let the appeals court, without any public oversight, disregard precedent and avoid having the world know about it. Every appellate decision should be published. In a world with the Internet, one can’t say that paper and publishing costs make that expense prohibitive.

      But part of the problem is the arrogance that infects the whole legal profession. Lawyers spend enormous amounts of energy convincing themselves that they are these idealistic and noble servants of the good society, advancing “equality” and “justice” and “the rule of law.” Of course few, if any, judges (and not many lawyers) take those values seriously and, even when they do, the demands of politics (and their partisan political affiliation) often override them.

      After all, who can say with a straight face that Bush v. Gore is an example of the judiciary honoring “equality” and the “rule of law”? Who can say that about many decisions that still sanction discrimination against people of different ethnic backgrounds, allow qualified people who are gay to be fired from jobs just because of their sexual orientation, shut the courthouse door to those who have legitimate grounds to object to flagrantly unlawful government activity, and sanction a collective cultural shrug of the shoulders as, literally, millions of children in the womb are killed under the guise of a court decision that does not even pretend to be based on the language of the constitution?

      I have long believed that the self-regulation of lawyers is bad for our democracy and bad for the profession. The same is true of the self-regulation of judges. I believe judges should be term-limited (that’s not intimidating them, as they wouldn’t lose their jobs before the end of their terms because of any decision they make) and I believe there should be clear criteria for the recommendations as to retention imposed. And judicial discipline agencies should have a majority of voting members from outside the legal profession and be elected by the public, not appointed by the courts or other politicians.

      Judges have too much power and too little accountability. At some point, the health of our democracy and the functioning of our political system (which, all too often, punts issues it thinks controversial to the courts) depends on rejecting the advice of apologists like Justice O’Connor and restoring checks and balances to the third branch.
      by: CastleMan @ Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:49:27 AM MDT

      1. Most municipalities now have civilian review boards for their police departments because the old system of having police-police the police was not working.  I wonder why it should be any different for lawyers, judges, doctors, etc.
        I really do not believe that they have any higher standards of ethics-after all they are just people like the rest of us right? With the exception that they have more to loose if they get caught with their hands in the cookie jar so to speak.  The reason for the civilian reveiw boards for police became necessary because the police covered for each other just as judges, lawyers, and doctors do.

          1. Work went well – both programming and sales. One of my daughters asked me to go get coffee with her. Working out didn’t kill me. And just ordered a couple more Russian Pop CDs.

            yes Congress gave Bush a blank check today.

            But still, a good day.

        2. If you hadn’t called me out….

          Sometimes, I post on issues that are hell-and-gone from the topic and in those posts, the issue is not even alluded to.  Other posts are offered to raise awareness, and still others explore larger issues (lack of government accountability at all levels, such as the Gonzo scandal). 

          As you and some of your colleagues have complained that those of us calling for judicial reform have at least one oar out of the water and don’t know what we are talking about, I thought it might be interesting to get your take on comments by a man who presents himself as a highly-experienced attorney who says the same basic thing.  I could quote law review articles out the wazoo, but those who live with the reality on the ground are the best witnesses.

  3. You know Mark Udall is trying to decide right now which way to vote on the Iraq funding bill – with that decision based on what will help him most win the Senate race.

    My worry is he will look at how the vote will play today. I think today it’s pretty balanced among those who might vote for him. It will get him more votes that are a bit right of center and will cause some on the get out now to not vote.

    And for many who want us out, the [D] after his name in the Senate will make them willing to vote for him regardless. So today, the safer route is to vote for funding.

    But in politics a week is a lifetime. And when this vote will really matter is summer/fall of ’08. And at that time I think it will be a very different situation.

    Anyone who thinks Iraq is going to get better with Bush running things is nuts. It’s continuing to get worse. The surge is way too small to have any significant effect. ANd Petarus has good ideas but it’s way too late for them to work – if they ever would.

    I think a vote against could bring a credible primary challange (Mike Miles anyone). Carol Moseley-Braun ran because she was so pissed about the way Anita Hill was treadted by the male senators – and came out of nowhere to win.

    I also think in ’08, between ongoing Republican corruption, incompetence, and Iraq being even worse, the Dems will be set to clearly control the Senate. This leaves activists free to elect a more liberal candidate in the primary and risk the general election. It also leaves them free to note vote in the Senate race.

    It also puts Udall in a very tight spot in the general election. Schaffer has no Iraq votes to defend. He can both pound Udall for his Iraq votes (which will look very unwise in ’08) and point out that Udall’s politics don’t differ much from his.

    I think Udall is so “careful” that he will do what is safer today and vote for the funding. But I think in ’08 he’s going to regret it bigtime.

    1. …the words “credible primary challenge” & “Mike Miles” in the same sentence.

      Udall should vote for it today, and wait for September.  If he votes against it, wait for the GOP to tag him with the “Mark Udall hates our soldiers and wouldn’t give them the money for body armour, food, etc” nonsense.  If he waits until September, where benchmarks and funding will have some teeth to them, he and the rest of Congress can truly pass something that will put real pressure on Bush.

      1. He votes no and immediately signs on for a new bill that provides funding with benchmarks and requirements. Then he didn’t give Bush a blank check but did offer up funding.

        In ’08 the May vs Sept is going to look like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. But almost all measures Iraq is continuing to spiral downwards and if trends continue it’s going to be even more horrible in ’08.

        As to Mike Miles – I’m not saying it would be him. But if the base gets pissed off enough – it could happen. Look what happened to Liberman in Conneticut.

      2. The Defense Appropriations Bill includes $141b for Iraq funding, and it’s already through some parts of the appropriations process.  Unless they’re going to change the current Defense spending bill from what it currently says, September is just an illusion.

    2. I am in favor of our staying in Iraq, but I really suspect that we have already lost. IOW, these soldiers that will die down the road, will be wasted lives. At this time, it is a pure crapshot as to which way it will go. Compound that with W. spewing more crap that is almost certainly just more lies (his lips moved), it is hard to really tell what is really possible. This is no different than when Johnson kept us in ‘nam with all the lies on enemy KIA’s.

      Personally, I do not hold it against the dems for pushing us out of there. I just wish that Udall would be himself and vote the way that he needs to, rather than worry about the polls. In particular, I have no doubt that he has more intel about Iraq than anybody here.

        1. I noticed that Nancy Pelosi voted “no” on the War Spending Bill today.  She must be feeling the heat as the new CBS poll released today showed that 72% of the American public think that this Country is headed in the wrong direction.
          In fact, all of the polls conducted this month show that the majority of Americans opposed the War in Iraq and this Bush-League Administration.

          Is impeachment back on the table, Ms. Pelosi?

    3. Dear Mr. Udall,

      Who do you serve, the American people or George W. Bush?

      Substantial majorities of the American people believe the war in Iraq was a mistake; they want the US to withdraw our troops from Iraq, they support Congress passing funding appropriations with benchmarks for the Iraqi government, a firm timetable for withdrawing US forces, and standards of equipment readiness and rotation intervals for troop deployment.

      President Bush refuses to accept appropriations legislation with any firm constraints.

      According to media reports, the Democratic-endorsed Iraq supplemental appropriation under negotiation will remove all fixed benchmarks and timetables, as Mr. Bush wants, and contrary to the wishes of the American people and the voters who elected a Democratic Congressional majority in 2006.

      This proposed legislation is unacceptable and I call on you to veto it just as emphatically as Mr. Bush did in his turn.  There is no middle ground here because Mr. Bush has no intention of ever voluntarily compromising or altering his policy in Iraq; he only recognizes the force of overwhelming and unyielding opposition.  Either you stand firm for the intent of the people who elected you, or you are an accomplice in perpetuating this obscenity of an illegal and unjustified war.

      The choice is yours, but know this:  If the Democratic Party in Congress passes this spineless, gutless, toothless appropriation, you forfeit my support.  I will not give one dime of my money or one minute of my time to any Democratic candidate for any public office until the Democrats in Congress confront Mr. Bush and pass binding guidelines for US withdrawal.  I will not vote for any candidate who does not take action for a defined end to this war. This includes your upcoming campaign for US Senate.

      So I ask again: Who do you serve, the American people or George W. Bush?

      Sincerely,

                1. If you go to the video’s page at youtube (for example, click directly on the video image above and it’ll take you there) you’ll see a box that’s labeled “embed.” Highlight all the code in the box, copy it, then paste it in your comment box and post.

                  Embedding other objects without having the code provided takes a little html knowledge (and that’s exactly how much I possess – a little). But there are online html tutorials that you can find via google.

    4. With a 70% disapproval rating for this war, and Main Street up in arms, anyone who persists in advocating staying the course toward the shoals of national bankruptcy and utter disaster is not going to get much traction in the general election.

      It might play in Colorado Springs, but just barely.

  4. Congratulations to Mary Cheney and Heather Poe on the birth of their child. Word of unsolicited advice: They may want to steer clear of friends of the child’s grandparents (Dick and Lynne) as they may try to kidnap the child and place him with parents who they deem more appropriate.

    http://www.washingto…

    1. Dick Cheney kisses religious right bootie but I have to hand it to him for sticking by his family.

      That said, it’s hypocritical of them not to stand up for the rights of gay parents everywhere – which they won’t.

      I’ve linked this before, and it’s worth another post: Dan Savage on Mary Cheney. Fair warning: Savage uses NSFW language (F-word, etc).

  5. Did Mike Coffman bring the same level of integrity to his supervision of elections in Iraq as he is now bringing to the Colorado SOS’s Office?

    This guy needs to resign.

    Bill Ritter needs to appoint someone who can restore integrity and competency to the SOS.

  6. By January 2008 there may well be 700-800 more U.S. (I am fully cognizant of the irony in the “united” part of that!)soldiers killed in Iraq…..for oil. Bush is out of touch with reality and extremely dangerous to the future of this country.

    Check out this bizarre exchange between Bush and ABC’s Martha Raddatz at his press conference this morning. First, Bush told the reporters, twice, that if we leave Iraq before “victory,” Al Qaeda will come to America and kill our children. He then said that if the Iraqi government asked us to leave today, we’d leave. He repeated that answer, twice.

    So, in other words, if the Iraqi government asked us to leave, Bush would sacrifice your children and he’d even be willing to let the terrorists commit another September 11 here in America – remember, those were his words, that’s what HE and the Republicans have repeatedly been saying would happen if we leave Iraq before “victory” – because what the Iraqi government wants is more important to Bush than the blood of “your children.”

    The rubber-stamp Republican congress in control prior to November 2006 have created this god-awful mess. Whatever Democrats have colluded with this atrocious policy, are included in this judgment. May God have mercy on their blood stained hands.

    1. Quick follow-up Mr. President: Since you mention children, your policies have drastically cut social services for children living in poverty across our nation. Aren’t these children far more likely to to die from lack of food, shelter, and/or adequate medical care than at the hand of Osama Bin Laden?

  7. I was having breakfast this morning and overheard this conversation about the pictures of Bush driving without his seatbelt on.
    The woman says to her friend “can you imagine him breaking the law like that-he should have got a ticket”

    I think that Bush was on his ranch (private property).  At least I do not think that the SS would let him drive anywhere else.

    Just another example of how the media can slant things and then how people will  interpret them. I can also remember Reagan driving around his ranch in his jeep without seatbelts and riding his horse without a helmet on (unless it was built in to his cowboy hat.

    1. should patrol private property but wouldn’t the law still apply? I’m assuming Texas has a seatbelt law on the books.

      Beside that, he should be more careful. This is the guy who crashed his mountain bike and choked on a pretzel. He would be the guy to get into a fatal accident on his own ranch…

      1. Lot of liberals happy and some of who are not liberals or conservatives. So quiet-or he may just start buckling up.
        And I am quite sure that the seatbelt law would not apply to private property.  At least it should not. And if it does I better write it down as one more slice out of our personal freedoms.  Next, thing they will do is legislate that you can not make love to your wife on your front lawn in the rose bushes. LOL

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

34 readers online now

Newsletter

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