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
July 11, 2007 03:15 PM UTC

Wednesday Open Thread

  • 67 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“If elected, there will never be another winter in Iowa! Let the word go forth!”

–Bill Bradley, 2000 presidential candidate

Tweet
Share

Comments

67 thoughts on “Wednesday Open Thread”

  3.   So said Jeanette Maier, the New Orleans’ madam whose brothel entertained U.S. Senator David Vitter (R-La.) back in ’02. 
      At least Vitter was nice and didn’t try to choke his mistress (Don Sherwood, R-Pa.), or prey on teenaged boys (Mark Foley, R-Fl.), or hypocritically call for the impeachment of a popular sitting president who was guilty of receiving a blow job while they themselves were guilty of engaging in adulterous relationships (Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., Bob Livingston, R-La., and Henry Hyde, R-Il.)

      1. Oh there are D’s out there, you just have to go farther back ;O)
        Wilbur Mills, Wayne Hays, John Young, Allan Howe, Fred Richmond, Gerry Studs, Brock Adams, Jim Bates, Gus Savage, Barney Frank, Charles Robb, Daniel Inouye, Mel Reynolds Bill Clinton, Gary Hart

          1. I think you are being slightly hypocritical yourself.  All of those guys claimed sainthood, they were running for elected office that’s what politicians do.  Just because they are not R’s does not mean they have a free pass to do it.

            1. and condemning people for their personal lives are two different things.

              Never once heard Clinton or Hart condemn Reagan for being divorced (isn’t that against the rules for evangelicals, catholics etc). 

              On the other hand, republicans like Newt and Hyde were outraged and obnoxious about their disgust of Clinton’s immoral behavior.  All the time Newt was having an affair and getting ready to divorce his second wife.  Hyde had affairs.  Delay and all the rest of the “condemners” of Clinton and the secular right. 

              Nothing says hypocrite like the holier than thou republicans.  Then again so many claim to be Christians while refusing to follow the teachings of Christ.

              Amazing.

            2. …as you know very well means to say one thing and do another.  Your long list (good memory?) may include adulterers, but the question is, did they ride the “family values” horse like all the R’s have done?

              It’s not their sins, it’s the hypocrisy, which is MUCH rarer on the D side.

        2. without waxing high and mighty about the adulterous relationships of others is very, very different from the kind of hypocricy that appears endemic among ‘Pubs.

          And, refresh my memory, what did Barney Frank do? Besides being openly gay, that is.

          1. so does that make it ok?  I will grant you that Republicans have a nasty habit recently of being guilty of what they are complainging about, but that does not make it ok for Dems to do the same, does it?

            Mr. Frank hired a prositute to live and work with him, later found out his home was being used for a prostitution ring.

              1. I get it fine.  It’s the left that is so caught up in the echo chamber of what the Republicans did wrong that they somehow moralize what their parties faults were a few years back.  If it’s ok for the Dems to do it then it should be ok for the Republicans to do it, if it’s not ok for the Dems then nor should it be for the Republicans.  It’s one way or the other.

                2. the difference between necessary and sufficient causes, or set theory. Here’s another abstraction of the conversation:

                  A: “Far more members of group G than of group H commit X, which includes Y.”
                  B: “Wrong! Just as many members of Group H as of group G commit Y!”

                  But A’s comparison was of those who commit X, not of those who commit Y. Y is merely a subset of X. It is possible for thousands of times more members of group H than of group G to commit Y, and for A’s statement to still have been completely correct and consistent.

                  Just to clarify, X is hipocricy regarding marital infidelities, and Y is marital infidelities themselves.

                  Once again, either you get it, or you are unable to grasp the most simple of logical formulations.

                  1. “Once again, either you get it, or you are unable to grasp the most simple of logical formulations.” 

                    Possibly the funniest post I have ever read on here.  Do you seriously talk like that?
                    Either way if you read the entire thread from the beginning you will see that it started out not as a post on hypocrisy but rather on sex scandals which I pointed out that the left hads its share of in the past as well.  Sure enough it got turned into a justification of why it is ok for the Dems to do it, which I said did not or at leas should not matter.  While OQD was arguing about the hypocrisy of the situation, if you read all of the posts you will see that I was arguing that the justificiation did not matter.

                    1. I did read the thread from the beginning, and it started out with OQD’s post on hypocricy, which was the third or fourth post on the thread and the one to which you were responding. The preceding posts were unrelated to either issue.

                      And what it got turned into was a futile attempt to correct an idiot. Since no one else besides you was talking about infidelity, no one had in any way ever implied that it was okay for the Dems to do “it,” but not for the ‘pubs. It’s that frikkin simple.

                    2. I think that is the second time you have called me an idiot in the past two days, I’m beginning to think you don’t like me. I feel sorry for you college professors who have to read your essays.

                    3. it’s just that you’re an idiot. (I think that makes four, more or less. Considering the stupidity of both your initial fallacy and, more amazingly, your inability to recognize it when spelled out for you, I’d say that shows remarkable restraint, and a generous willingness to underplay your mental ineptitude :-)).

                      And, sorry, as much as I enjoyed being a college student, and as much as I chose to prolongue it by doing several post-graduate degrees, my current professional role exploits that investment rather than continues to indulge in the pleasure of making it. The college professors of the world are safe, for now. (Needless to say, many of my former professors are lifelong friends of mine).

                    4. my mental shortcomings.  I will try and believe that you are not some pompous junior at CU.  I saw your other posts about me being poorly educated (I think my degree’s and profession would say otherwise), ethnocentrist(my year long volunteer work would also say different) moralist (yes, I still have them thank you very much) and a couple others, I had a hard time staying awake.

                      Trying to be civil, it sounds as if you are involved in student loans.  How much is HR 2669 gonna hurt your industry.

                    5. Even as a student, I managed to save more than I spent (being abundantly endowed with scholarships, research assistanceships, and eventually adjunct faculty positions). As for being a pompous junior at CU, while I wouldn’t entirely mind the physical benefits of setting the clock back 30 years, in all other respects I’m happier where I am now.

                      As for your proofs that my guesses about you were erroneous, degrees don’t necessarily signify “good education” (I know some really dumb -that is, “poorly educated”- Ph.D’s), nor does volunteer work necessarily indicate a multi-cultural perspective (I know plenty of dedicated missionaries who are trying to overthrow the indigenous beliefs of those whom they are “aiding”). But, to be fair, as tempting as the generalization of traits that tend to flow together may have been, I should have only focused on the one in evidence: Your astoundingly poor grasp of logic.

                      No matter how much formal education you may have, and no matter what profession you may be in, your inability to distinguish between a sufficient and a necessary cause (i.e., your inability to distinguish between comments referring to hypocricy involving infidelity, and infidelity itself) prove that you don’t grasp the fundamentals of logical thought, whether formal or informal. If you are indeed in a profession which requires considerable intelligence, then I pity your clients: They’re clearly being ripped off.

                    6. which, unsurprisingly, is an idiom competely foreign to you, and thus funny. Undoubtedly, you laugh at a whole world of people unlike yourself, while they shake their heads in despair at the “typical American” you represent: Poorly educated, reactionary, moralistic, and ethnocentristic, a bunch of Yahoos who pillage and rape their way through other people’s lands. Of course, it’s an unfair representation, but it’s the one you help to project so effectively.

            2. Your error, as Parsing pointed out, is misidentifying the “it” in your above phrase. “It,” in the original post to which I was responding and in mine as well, is hypocricy, not adultery. The former, IMHO, is relevant to the political qualifications of the person in question, while the latter is not. I understand that there is a large segment of the population of this country that disagrees with me, and that adheres to a particular moral compass when evaluating politicians. I accept that they are entitled to do so, but strongly feel that it is a dysfunctional choice. We do not elect our representatives to be paragons of virtue, but rather to perform a specific, albeit complex, service. And Thank God the moralists did not prevail (probably due mostly to the primitive communications technologies of the time) during the formation of this country, or Jefferson and Franklin, at least, would have been driven out of the process altogether.

              1. So I am pretty sure I understood what I was talking about.  If adultery is ok for one party then it should be ok for the other, if it’s not ok for one then it should not be ok for the other.
                I think it’s slightly insulting to Democrats to think that they are not a party of morals, my assumption is that most would claim faith of some kind.

                1. it was hypocricy! Adultery is another subject, and not the sin for which the ‘pubs were being indicted in the posts to which you responded. Furthermore, I answered your changed subject from my perspective: Adultery isn’t highly relevant to the choice of political leaders. IMHO. So, in this context, it is “okay,” as far as I’m concerned (their spouses undoubtedly have their own opinions on the matter) for both Republicans and Democrats, as long as it doesn’t impinge on their ability to do their job (it can, of course, become a vulnerability that someone can exploit, either by blackmail or by playing on the moralistic obsessions of American voters).

                  I don’t know whether Dems consider themselves the party of morals or not, I only know that I’m more interested in other, more relevant issues, hypocricy being one of them.

                  To review: We (that is, everyone but you) were talking about hypocricy, not marital infidelity. You have every right to discuss marital infidelity to your heart’s content, but to do so as a refutation of a post that wasn’t discussing marital infidelity is merely rhetorical sleight-of-hand. Saying, “aha! So the ‘pubs and dems are held to different standards” implies that the topic was the one you changed the conversation to, rather than the one that the conversation was about before you entered it.

                  Undetermined facts can be disputed, as can conclusions based on equally well-supported analyses. But straight forward formal logic, correctly applied, can’t be. IF all birds that can fly have wings, and IF Joe-the-bird is wingless, THEN Joe-the-bird can’t fly. To answer that by saying “I think it’s unconscionable to deny Joe his right to flight just because he doesn’t have wings!” would be a non-sequitor, and would have no bearing on the argument that had been made. Your comments were identical in nature to the irrelevant response in the preceding example.

                  No offense (well, yeah, offense): Either you get it, or you’re kinda dumb. There’s not much gray area to work with here.

            1. I enjoy reading what you post, usually very funny.  I just think you are wrong in saying that it is somehow more ok for one party to screw up on something as long as they did not complain as much about it before.

              1. OQD was commenting on hypocricy, not adultery. You can change the subject, but you can’t retroactively impose your change of subject on the intent of another poster’s comments.

                Another analogy: Someone posts, “I can’t stand politicians who are insincere!” and you reply, “Oh, so it’s okay then for politicians to kill people, as long as they’re sincere about it, eh?”

                Huh?

                And “huh?” is just what we are all saying to you now, because “huh?” is the correct response to your comments.

                It might be clearer to you if I paraphrase the discussion in question. Person A says, “Lots of politicians from the X party seem to commit the grave sin of accusing others of particular kinds of immoral conduct while engaging in that same immoral conduct themselves.” Person B replies, “How selective you are! There are plenty of politicians in the Y party who engage in those kinds of immoral conduct as well!” The problem, that we are trying to point out to you, is that the subject of the first post wasn’t the particular kinds of immoral conduct, but rather the habit of accusing others in the other party of the same immoral conduct while engaging in it. You’re response latched onto an incidental fact (incidental to the point of the original post) included in the post as being the subject of the post. And then you kept insisting that the incidental fact you latched onto was, in fact, the subject of the post, and that the subject was the incidental fact! But, alas, it wasn’t so, and insisting over and over again that it was doesn’t change that.

                The topic was hypocricy, not adultery. Just repeat that a few hundred times, and it might sink in.

              2.   My issue is with the hypocrisy, not in whose ink well David Vitter may or may not be dipping his wick. 
                  If the hypocritical Christian Conservatives would demonstrate a little more humility (yes, humility…..a Christian virtue) and lot less moralistic bombastic bull, I wouldn’t complain about their trangressions.  Their transgressions would remain private matters.
                  But when these people label my friends and me “moral degenerates” who are somehow responsible for everything wrong in the world, you bet we are going to point out the shortcoming on the team opposite.

                1. That the LA State Republican chairman called on Vitter to either resign or switch parties to a party “that finds this behavior acceptable”.

                  Now there’s a chairman who has some stuff…

                  1.   Hmmmm…..whichever party might he have had in mind?  The Libertarians?  Doesn’t their platform call for legalization of the commcercial sex industry (a/k/a prostitution)?
                      If Vitter resigned before the end of this year, I believe Governor Kathleen Blanco, a Dem, would get to name his interim appointment. 
                      If he holds out until after the Nov. election (as I expect he will), La. will probably be electing a GOP governor who would get the fill the vacancy, and all will be well in the GOP Senate Conference.

                    1. GOP in the state are trying to get Blanco to appoint a Rep if Vitter steps down.  Why Blanco would do that, I don’t have a clue.  She would really have to be spinless, but we’ll go there later.  Thing is, Jindal is trying to clear the Republican field for his governor run by steering everyone to the senate seat.

                    2. lol…..I love it!  He’s using a not-quite-yet vacant Senate seat as bait for his primary opponents in the Guv’s race.  It makes perfect sense. 
                        Jindal just might pull this stunt off……but the state GOP has to hold its nose and keep Vitter in office til Blanco leaves. 

    3. “There is a House in New Orleans that’s called the Rising Sun, and it’s been the ruin of many poor Senators, and, God, Vitter knows that he’s one.”

      1. Flynt went to the open market, willing to pay high price for information and low and behold this is what is dug up. During his senatorial campaign Vitter was accused of this very thing, but no one was offering a check like Flynt did. http://blog.washingt…

        Sen. Vitter “was” an advocate for “mainstream conservative issues” who supported the marriage amendment, anti-choice. I also wonder if the “madam’s service” was the type of “women & small business” he inquires about? http://vitter.senate…

        I wonder if a “Flynt offer” will be made here in Colorado for our very own “mainstream conservative” Senatorial candidate?

        1. the Republican Party……working to keep the commercial sex industry private while free of government subsidies, tax breaks, and excessive government regulation……..

  4. Apparently, mass murder and rape and cannibalism and all of the worst sins of humanity are okay, so long as the sinner never denounces the sin.  But once he does, that hypocrisy is worse than all three (and any other sin imaginable) combined.

    Of course, the corollary to that is that as long as you have “good intentions” and are only “getting the message out,” a sin like polluting (and the hypocrisy of being vocally against pollution in the process) is just fine and dandy.

    1. Um, where exactly did anyone say anything about mass murder, rape and cannibalism in this thread?

      Vitter is a worm, and a recidivist worm at that.  Calling gay marriage the greatest threat facing Louisiana – a year after Katrina, no less – is a sure sign of a grandstanding, hypocritical shill.

      Now, let’s talk about mass murder (aka unjustified war), rape (aka the actions actively overlooked in CNMI thanks to Abramoff) and cannibalism (well, not much to talk about lately I hope – unless you want to throw in Alfred Packer…).  I’m good with that discussion if you are…

      1.   In all fairness, ex-U.S. Senator Rick Santorum once said something very similar.  He said that same sex marriage was a greater threat than terrorism because it would fundamentally change the mway we were defined as a nation.
          I suspect that Santorum’s warped sense of priorities played a role in his forced retirement last Nov.
          It will be nice if Vitter suffers the same fate.

        1. does this crap come from a think tank, the Klan meetings or a special magic axe handle they use to decode all that “love thy neighbor” stuff in the bible?

      2. Denouncing one sin without commenting on others is not an endorsement of the ones that weren’t the subject of your remarks! Otherwise, no one could ever comment on anything without first commenting on everything else, just to make sure they are not interpreted as having endorsed all of the things that were not the intended topic of their remarks!

        How hard is that to grasp?!

    2. No one has ok’d murder, rape or cannibalism.  Personally cannibalism is border line. 😉 No one since my great-grandfather kept Kosher and I never put much stock in the levitican laws.

      Hypocrisy is in essence bearing false witness, accusing someone of a “crime” you yourself are guilty of.  There is a reason the commandment makes G-d’s top 10.

      2. False witness is perjury, accusing someone of a crime T>HEY are not guilty of.  As to hypocrisy, we’re all guilty of that one, you emphatically included (as am I.) If we were never hypocrites , it would mean we never aspired to be anything nobler than we are at our basest moments.

          1. There is a mathematical model of how social norms are generated that suggests that hypocricy is the foundation of social order! (In brief, it’s “cheaper” to tell others how to behave then to engage in the desired behavior yourself, but the resulting diffuse social approbation and reprobation raises the costs to all of misbehaving).

  5. that another right wing Bible thumping, prayer in school, conservative senator could not keep his family values in his pants.  During the Clinton affair, this Senator’s wife told the press that she was more like Lorena Bobbett than Hilary indicating that she would be taking something from him if he cheated, and it wasn’t going to be alimony.  Oh I forgot, God has forgiven him.

  6. Actually, Paul Verizzo with another in a continuing, sporadic series of warnings about the decline of America.

    Today, we find that the itty-bitty highly socialistic, single payer health care country of Norway now has more millionaires per capita than any other country/

    http://www.aftenpost…

    It was just a few days ago that I read yet another moron writing in the Snooze that America is “on top.”  Of what, I ask?  What decade’s jingoism was he repeating?

    I take no pleasure in this, this is where I live. The Chinese are coming, the good jobs are going, and we are run by the corporations.  Jeremy Rifkin wrote about all this a decade ago in his “the European Dream”, roundly poo-pooed by the knee jerkers.

    Well, here we are….

      1. Regardless, their average income exceeds Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, Mexico, all large oil exporters.  Must be something else that puts them over the top.

  7. Why do these guys have a job?
    …………………………………..
    Undercover Congressional investigators set up a bogus company and obtained a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in March that would have allowed them to buy the radioactive materials needed for a so-called dirty bomb.

    The investigators, from the Government Accountability Office, demonstrated once again that the security measures put in place since the 2001 terrorist attacks to prevent radioactive materials from getting into the wrong hands are insufficient, according to a G.A.O. report, which is scheduled to be released at a Senate hearing Thursday.

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

299 readers online now

Newsletter

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