U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

(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
July 18, 2007 02:33 PM UTC

Wednesday Open Thread

  • 42 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“I think if you know what you believe, it makes it a lot easier to answer questions. I can’t answer your question.”

–George W. Bush

Comments

42 thoughts on “Wednesday Open Thread

  1. I was mildly surprised to see that Ken Salazar was not so good at delivering a speech.
    But the content was VERY impressive. 

    I was HUGELY surprised by the performance of Wayne Allard. 
    Before I make any cutting remarks, I need to ask if the Senator really has Stage III Alzheimers.  He exhibits the symptoms.

    I have a strict policy of not mocking the differentially abled.

    Someone reply, because I’m anxious to say what I really think. 
    For example, I think he makes Doug Lamborn look “statesmanlike.” 

    1.   Were you up all night watching them on C-SPAN?  Allard never ceases to amaze me with his customary inadequate speaking skills, but based upon your description, this speech sounds like one for the record books.

      1. was based on getting press for my approach to fixing our Iraq strategy.  That never panned out.  The local paper, the Gazette, went on at length at how few people attended my campaign events, but never even mentioned the approach. 

        As a social conservative fundamentalist Christian, I had no chance of beating Jay for the nomination. 

        But I felt called by God to counter the false claims by the Bush Administration that Jesus had called them to kill as many brown-skinned people as possible. 

        1. As someone who’s managed a campaign before, I know that can be very taxing.  What office did you run for, if you don’t mind my asking?

          1. so it appears Barron X is a Democrat who ran for the CD5 nomination last year. (He changed handles – I vaguely remember this guy posting stuff last year…)

          2. Looking at his page shows he’s been around for a long time and has NOT switched handles. He just hasn’t commented much until recently.

              1. I hated the Army when I went in the first time, during the war in VietNam, and couldn’t wait to get out.  And yes, I enlisted. 

                But ended up joining the National Guard in Pueblo during College (B/5/19 SF) just for the money, and found out that I actually liked it.  What do you know. 

                I rejoined active duty after college.  I wasn’t so good at being an officer, didn’t have quite the right attitude, but never lost my love and respect for the service and soldiers. 
                Despite my experience, I can still be amazed by the sacrifices that otherwise ordinary people make in service to this country.

                So, like many vets, it really bugs me that draft dodgers in the Administration are using the military for crass partisan political gain. But if that was all there was to it, I like to think I would have the maturity to get over it. 

                From my narrow perspective, I believe it is much worse.  I believe that soldiers are bleeding and dying for Republican votes. 

                I didn’t quit the GOP; they drove me away.  I can’t speak for other vets, but for this vet, despite my religious fundamentalism, or maybe because of it, I had to leave. 
                .

                1. …you are a man who can follow his own conscience despite being told what you should be thinking.  My (mostly pacifist, liberal) hat is off to you. I think that’s called integrity, or so I hear.

                  Back in the late sixties the Army was after my ass when they saw my AFQT (??) scores during the physical exams in Miami. 

                  Forty years later I can look back on the Paul of that era with some dispassion.  I can say that I would probably been fragged by my guys, I would have been totally incompetant as a leader.  They saw my IQ and thought I would have been a good leader.  NOT! 

                  When the portable Viet Nam wall was in Golden about 12 years ago, I visited it.  I found a long note from a soldier under the name of another man, an officer.  It was an admission of how he and his buddies intentionally killed the officer. How much they hated him. 

                  That was me, there but for the grace of some angel in the Selective Service office in Sarasota that I never met.

                  Thank you, Angel.

                  Paul Verizzo

        2.   I didn’t realize that you were Fawcett’s challenger in C.D. 5.  (Now that you mention it, I DO recall hearing something about a social conservative running for the Dem nomination.)
            It’s pure speculation, but I gotta wonder how you might have fared against Lamborn last year.  As for whether you “fit” in the Democratic Party, I would have to say, no less than the RINOs “fit” in the GOP. 
            The “big tent” metaphor goes both ways…..

          1. but I did have the conservative thing going on. Totally against abortion; not for gay marriage.  Paid no dues in the Party. 

            in fact, I had just switched from GOP in 2004 just to run against Joel, but didn’t do my homework and missed the deadline. 

            I never thought anyone would make a serious run like Jay; I really just wanted to get my Iraq approach, now referred to as “Model Communities,” in the newspaper. 

            I’m also the guy that unintentionally elicited the Lamborn response in Canon City, which got to YouTube:
            “Sir, would you please shut your mouth.”

            Wikipedia says I’m an authority on mercenaries.  When Doug unexpectedly said there were none in Iraq, I had an uncontrolled outburst. 

            I’m nearing fixation or paranoia on Iraq and the pointless deaths of soldiers. 

            We would actually do more for US security by changing the mission and drawing down troop levels.

            I insist the President does not hate the country and the military, but he keeps making me look wrong on that. 

  2. naive little me, I was even surprised to hear James Inhofe, National Socialist- Oklahoma, boast about meeting with child soldiers in Hondouras fighting Reagan’s illegal war. 
    .

    1. Eubanks is being sworn in today which is good. Since Gibson is on vacation and Wagner resigned, it has left the commissioners without a quorum. I’d like to see the County resume running as soon as possible.

    1. is the only Republican who can respectfully disagree with those who support changing course. 

      Seemed like all other Republicans implied that, to disagree with them is to be evil and treasonous. 
      .

      1. he mistakenly thinks the temporary alliance with Sunnis in al-Anbar marks a fundamental, permanent shift.

        But these folks will turn on our soldiers as soon as al-Qaeda is done.

        Republicans (mostly draft dodgers) mostly seem to think – wrongly – that the soldiers on the front line have an understanding of the big picture.
        They don’t. 

        I’ve been an infantryman, in a foxhole and on combat patrol, and I stayed focused on the enemy in my front yard.  I didn’t know the big picture.  I didn’t even care what was on the next block.  I only saw the mission at hand. 
        .

        1. As Sen. Webb pointed out when Graham tried to use the old argument that as long as the troops believe in the mission it’s our duty to support them, polls of troops in Iraq reflect the same general results as do polls of the American public. It’s time for the Repubs to stop using troops as  political accessories, like flag pins and bumper stickers.

          The soldier we know best, who is not looking forward to his up-coming redeployment though he has no plans to evade his obligation, realizes that the whole “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” thing is strictly temporary.  The same guys offering you tea today because you are decimating their sectarian enemies will be happy to slit your throat tomorrow when that little problem has been solved for them and now you’re just the plain old “enemy” again.  And they’ll be armed to the teeth by us when that turn-around comes.

          1. Not so many years ago in my long-ish life I realized something psychologically foundational.  Now, go ahead and chuckle at my recent “A ha!” in it’s late arrival if you will, but nevertheless, here it is.

            “Everyone wants to think that their work is important.”

            People will lie to themselves and others to justify their work, their daily existence in order to feel good.

            Take a soldier in Iraq.  He has two choices.  He can think what he is doing is important, or not.  If not, his morale plummets and he becomes an outcast with his buddies who are still putting on their psychological bullet proof vests. 

            For this reason – and several others – the soldier on the ground is the LAST person who should be given voice.  A source of information, yes.  An opinion of mission validity, no.  Add to that, most soldiers are still pretty wet behind the ears in life and don’t have much cultural or historical grounding.

            I came to this understanding over the years that I worked in sales (hydraulic/pneumatic sales engineer and wholesale grade B mortgages.)  Why do companies spend great sums and efforts to keep the troops pumped to sell another widget?  Because at heart, many of us realize the meaningless of moving widgets from the warehouse to a customer. 

            There are secondary repercussions of this self-loathing. Drinking too hard, distortions of values (being #1 in sales is the most important thing you can possibly do), dreading going to work, etc.

            When 90% of the populace was farming, or one step away from it, work had value.  At the end of a day, the effort often had tangible results, unlike a spreadsheet. 

            I could go on at length, but won’t. 

  3. Sorry, this is late. But before leaving on vacation, I saw that DDIG (or whatever his login is) was saying that Schaffer would have a monster showing in fund raising. Based on that, I was expecting it to be 2-3 times what Udall’s was. It appears that Udall’s was 1.1 mil while Schaffer’s was 3/4 mil. Since there are ppl here that have ran past campaigns, what is the norm for that quarters? IOW, what did Salazar and Coors take in during that time? I would think that since it is pretty much just Schaffer getting red money, that it would ALL go to him. Is 3/4 mill “embarrassing” money or is that chump change?

    1. but Dobby (just call him that, it’s easier to type) pointed out that BS raised all that in 6 weeks (he couldn’t raise money til he made it official in mid May, so he was fundraising for only half a quarter). Seems impressive in that light, but I think that since it was common knowledge that he was running and McInnis wasn’t, I think that a lot of that money would have come to his campaign sooner if he’d declared sooner – so if he had declared sooner I doubt BS would have actually raised a lot more money. In other words, I doubt he would have raised $1.5 million if he had declared at the start of the quarter, which is how Dobby was spinning the funding results.

    2. Udall has significantly more in the bank, but BS was to outraise what most had been predicting. Their released numbers almost silenced the other, which benefits BS.

      Most are predicting this race will cost each candidate over $10 million; I think Salazar spent almost $11. Udall’s campaign plans to raise over $12. I predict he raises and spends over $15 million.

      So as you can see, they have a long way to go.

    1. Taking a look at it, I’m wondering who she didn’t sue.

      In the opinion the Judge writes, “she does not present a legally reasoned arguement to support [her] position”.

      Welcome to our world, ya ‘Onner.

      1. You will probably be named along with Tilt, Rio, myself, and at least a few other bloggers here. (Anyone who’s beeeen reeeally reeeally meaaan to her!)

  4.   Remember that sorry Harrington bastard that I devoted an entire rant to about how the Tenth Circuit judges decide certain cases under the because-I-said-so doctrine?  He filed a Petition for Rehearing en banc, which is statistically granted less than 1% (even less than SCOTUS cert. petitions —see here).  Well, anyway, it was granted, today. (click here or here).

    This was the case that Oh-Wilike said, “The Tenth Circuit got . . . right” (click here.

    Well, here’s the deal. Harrington claimed that they didn’t read any of the principle briefs (not even the defendants’ brief).  He claimed that was why and how they were able to arrive at a conclusion/disposition of the case that is completly unsupported by any precedents as applied to the facts of the case.  That, he argued, is why they were able to commit all of the errors that disposed of his case, including the single error that resulted in his rehearing petition being granted and the withdrawal of the earlier opinion.

    However, in today’s opinion, they didn’t admit to not reading the briefs (which was the only way that particular appeals court error, now-reversed, could’ve occured), because, if they did, they’d have to actually expend the effort to review the case on the merits, reverse, remand and allow it to proceed to trial.

    In fact, I’m beginning to think that Harrington actually must have had good arguments –good enough that, there was no way to dispose of them without exerting considerable time and effort, not to mention finding some legally defensible reasoning to disregard stare decisis (see my rant on stare decisis here).  How could I say that?  Because here is an example of how they dispose of a truly frivolous pro se case.  They gave this guy seven (7) pages just to deny his in forma pauperis appeal and, at the same time, dissected and tore apart his ridiculous legal arguments. 

    In Harrington v. Wilson, conversly, they provided a 567-word memorandum opinion that only rubber-stamped the district court’s rubber-stamp of a magistrate’s recommendations (a magistrate, who, by the way, is a speaker for one of the defendant’s lobbying groups (click here).

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

164 readers online now

Newsletter

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