President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
52%↑
48%↓
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 13, 2013 01:07 PM UTC
47 Comments
Just because Olson wasn't threatened doesn't mean he wasn't influenced. This means nothing.
Dammit.
I was really hoping that the CO dems had finally figured out how to play hardball.
hint: it's supposed to hurt
Well, it's just possible that sheriffs acting like lickspittles for extreme right wing groups might undercut the notion that they deserve a big bump in salary.
Oh, the humanity!
Reality is a lot less exciting:
Davie, how many times do I have to explain the rules?
When Republicans refuse to raise pay for local sheriffs, they are standing fast for the taxpayers against overpaid, over-reaching bureaucrats and politicians who are displaying unseemly greed in hard economic times.
When Democrats refuse to raise pay for local sheriffs, they are using left-wing intimidation tactics to bully hard-working public servants to punish them for standing up for the constititional right to own assault weapons, Rifle Propelled Grenades and low-yield nuclear weapons.
Yeesh, how many times do I have to explain this?
You're right, and see how well it's been working for the GOP in the past few elections?
It's not so much that Colorado is a Blue state, as it is simply, we're a lot smarter than the average GOP pol. Unaffiliateds and moderate Republicans really don't want to be seen hanging around with the current crop of elected GOP wackos.
What Voyageur said. After putting up with GOP attacks on Dems as tax and spendthrifts and public sector employees as overpaid lazy bums for decades, what a surprise that Dem majority leadership would insist on being joined by GOP sponsors on a proposal to raise Sheriffs' salaries while the GOP is calling for austerity. What a surprise that GOP legislators would say "no thanks" but GOP pols are so happy to use the whole thing to try to make Dems look like extortionists. Would somebody who watches O'Reilly let us know if he's jumping on this "scandal" too? Can't wait for ArapG to weigh in, although I could probably write his post for him.
What Voyater said.
It's going to fun to see how Lord Flatulence tries to argue that there really really was a Democratic conspiracy that needed serious investigation. Damn those liberals and all their conspiracies. Or not.
I don't believe I ever argued there was a conspiracy – I argued the OP hadn't proven there wasn't. That's all.
Your "point" was poorly phrased, poorly thought out, and poorly defended. My advice is that you quit digging.
Your advice is duly noted and given the weigh it is worth.
Weight
@Aristotle
Were you referencing this?
http://www.comedycorner.org/3.html
Something along the lines of: "You haven't proven that the moon isn't made of green cheese so we should consider the possibility that it is." or "You haven't proven your innocent of that crime so we can make you stand trial because there is a possibility that you aren't".
This thing didn't pass the smell test from the beginning. Wing-nut CSP sheriff shooting off his mouth on right-wing radio about some vast Democratic conspiracy to make him a victim because of his couragous stand against popular legislation. The guy was a bozo from the beginning. That newspaper in Denver printed an article on it so it will be interesting to see if they print a followup.
When somebody raises a complaint it is at times appropriate to ask for more evidence. That many on this page immediately concluded there could be none was not appropriate
More often it's just the old trick of smearing by demanding that someone prove a negative, which of course is impossible to ever do to the satsifaction of the conspiracy minded.
Let's all prove we weren't born in a foreign country and our birth certificates and announcements aren't forgeries and our grandparents, fake grade school and High School and College classmates and teachers who say they remember us aren't all part of a giant conspiracy. Or that we aren't replicated ET substitutes for humans who have been snatched and sent to another planetary system for study. If I'm concerned that you are, prove that you're not. Are you now or have you ever been… fill in the blank. Because if you can't prove your not….
We all are entitled to suspect whatever but there should be a higher threshold for making public accusations or calls for investigations, and certainly for the media to pass them along, than that somebody thinks it would be just like them lousy fill in the blanks to do fill in the blank.
Bluecat,
I never said I found Maketa's claims credible. I just said they hadn't been proven false.
Still determined to count the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin, eh Fladen?
Best of luck with that.
Still determined to put words in my mouth, eh Davie?
Nah, if you want me to do that, my billable rate is $400 an hour.
And I explained, in detail with examples, how that in itself doesn't justify public accusations. To recap: Do I have the right to accuse you in a public manner of being an ET replicant of the real Elliot Flader just because I suspect that's the case? You'll have a hell of a time proving that to be false.
It's a matter of degree, Elliot. Before any public accusation is made that requires the accused to prove a negative, the standard for positive evidence of the accusers' claims ought to be a lot higher than that upon which the Sheriffs' claims are based.
I'm guessing you're not the kind of lawyer who argues cases in court. At least I hope not, for any client's sake.
The fact that we were proven correct actually does support us, and is evidence that our skepticism was very appropriate.
What isn't appropriate is saying that a claim needs to be proven false.
Tell me – as an attorney, do you take this same approach to your cases (treating unsupported claims as facts until proven otherwise)?
Elliott is an attorney?? Or, claiming to be one?
That explains a lot.
Aristotle, never once did I treat the above as facts. I simply said they were not shown to false.
One thing you learn when you do trials as I have is you need to be very careful in concluding and stating that somebody is lying. Very careful.
Fortunately, this is politics, not a trial, so we can be a bit looser about that. In law, you would probably conduct an investigation and try to find the facts. In politics, you just need to regard a politician's statements critically.
This didn't happen in a bubble. There is context allowing us to draw conclusions. Elected Republicans, especially but not exclusively those from El Paso County, have a history of specious if not outright false claims.
Maketa made his initial claim eminently dismissable because he was very specific about what the email said without showing it at the same time. He has no excuse for saying "I received an email that says…." without producing it. (If there is some law or procedural rule prohibiting him from just sharing it, he should have kept quiet until securing permission to release it.)
Furthermore, the charge was very unlikely to be true. Sure, sometimes hardball politics such as what he alleged takes place. But the Dems have no recent history of such a thing. Producing the email would have helped. Having it released by the other side and showing that it contained no such threat? Not too much of a help.
Maketa is now on the record making false claims about the House Democrats. Whether he was lying or just being stupid doesn't matter. The next statement he makes will be regarding in the context of this fact
It's odd how you are all rushing to attack Sheriff Maketa. This kind of wheeling and dealing happens at the capitol and it's not appropriate. You all know it happens, that's why the sheriffs were using the Democrat Pelle to negotiate. I'll bet there's a lot more to this story that we'll learn right after the gun grab is signed into law.
Pointing out that he has nothing is an attack? Only on Planet Republican!
Please. You obviously don't spend much time at the capitol. If you don't think this kind of quid pro quo isn't routine, you're a fool.
What gun grab? You can say it all you want, ArapG, but there is no proposed or passed legislation to take away anybody's guns. Every time you say there is you are lying. And every time Maketa makes an accusation with no evidence that he's willing to make public, he deserves to be called out.
So you disagree with this analysis then Bluecat?
Yes. Glock has been manufacturing non-convertible 10 round magazines for the California and New York markets for years. They simply will do the same for Colorado. The bill allows you to keep the magazines you already have. If you want to sell the gun in the future, you simply sell it without any magazines which can be comverted.
That seems to be a fair response.
Why didn't Democrats just call it a 10 round limit, if they have to buy 10 round clips? More gun control dirty tricks!
The point I believe jadod is making is that although the current form of magazines would have potential legal issues, other compliant forms are available or would be available.
A brief blog post from a disreputable partisan is "analysis"?
Dude, that doesn't even rise to the level of something with which one can disagree.
Of course it is, Ari…. on Bizarro world, where Fladen and Co. dwell. I'm surprised at how slow you are to learn…
Cough…strawman…cough?
No, what counts as analysis is what the person says. Do you agree or disagree with his contentions about the bills?
Have you read Pols' diary about this very same "analysis"? ROFL…
Anyway, you need to learn your internet comebacks. My dismissal is closer to an ad hominem. A "strawman" is when someone makes a false argument on the behalf of the opposition. (Not that this was an ad hominem, either – Caldera is a partisan hack, and that is an objective and fair, if harsh, conclusion, not a subjective slam.)
I read this analysis here after I responded to your comment and I found it to be persuasive.
Not much here that I would dignify by calling "analysis" but yes, I disagree wuth the assertions.
that would be "with".
I know this comment is a bit late, but Arap is once again playing word games. Joe Pelle is a fine Sherrif, but he's a life-long Republican. He only changed his voter registration to Democratic when he decided to run for Sherrif in Boulder County.
If Arap is as politically connected as he likes to lead us to believe, then he obviously knows tihs fact. There are many ways to lie. This is just one more.
There's probably been some mention of this but not enough: What really concerns me about Maketa's unsubstantiated claims is that he is a law enforcement officer caught in an apparent lie, or at best, misrepresentation of the facts. Nothing worse.
Reminds me of the time some years ago when I was driving along on a rural, not-well-traveled Colorado highway and was stopped by a State Patrolman because I was going a few over the speed limit. He was coming toward me over a slight rise, then I saw him in my rearview mirror make a quick turnaround and follow me for a mile or so. During the stop I believe he exaggerated a bit when telling me what I was "clocked" doing, but what floored me was when he said to me, "You continued to exceed the speed limit when I was right behind you."
I knew that was absolutely untrue, and it was a very frightening feeling to realize not only that I was alone on the highway with this officer of the law making false allegations about the infraction, but also that if he was so comfortable lying to a driver he would probably also lie under oath in court. I never heard what happened after my letter to his boss and the head of the State Patrol was received . . . .
Good for you for writing his supervisors, Realist. That kind of abuse of power should never go unchallenged.
An officer potentially faces getting put on a "Brady list" for lying. A REALLY bad thing for a career.
But apparently, totally ok for a Sheriff. Who knew?
But not as bad as lying officers are for us and for the whole justice system.