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
April 08, 2009 03:31 PM UTC

Wednesday Open Thread

  • 54 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“The most savage controversies are about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way.”

–Bertrand Russell

Comments

54 thoughts on “Wednesday Open Thread

  1. Here’s my take on the results of the Colorado Springs election which wrapped up yesterday.  1A and 1D were the most interesting.

    1A, My Summary: Extend an expiring property tax and use the money to help businesses and promote new jobs.

    Other: Only sign I saw on the issue was on the north end of town, the heart of wingnutsville.  Something like, “Fight 1A, prevent corporate welfare.”

    Outcome: Overwhelming defeat as expected.  38% yes, 62% no

    Translation: Classic mindless El Paso County lemmings, er I mean Republicans.  “You want MY money?  Not just no but h*** no.  It doesn’t matter if we have bridges, schools, or jobs so long as you don’t tax me… ever.”  Let the bathtub drowning continue!

    1D, My Summary: Do we change the definition of a city “enterprise” so we can take federal grants (other peoples’ money) without the money counting toward a revenue cap… and thus allow us to essentially raid all the (other peoples’) money we gain from federal funds and use the money we save for our city’s general budget?  (Not that the author’s summary of this issue is at all biased but feel free to do your own research.)

    Other: I watched the first six minutes or so of debate on this issue.  It makes me sick to the stomach to actually agree with Doug Bruce who opposed this issue in that the total intent of changing the word “enterprise” was so that we could effectively raid federal funds for general city services.  To me, council member Larry Small looked like a complete snake in claiming that these federal funds wouldn’t be used to backfill the city’s general fund.  It should be noted that nowhere in the the portion of video I watched did I see Doug Bruce kick either of the people sitting next to him in the knee.

    Homework Project:  Go to http://www.google.com and type “define: fungible”  It’s one of Doug’s favorite words, but rightly so.

    Outcome: Passed overwhemingly.  67% yes, 33% no

    Translation: Classic mindless El Paso County Republicans.  See 1A.  “You want to tax me?  H*** no.  But should we take other peoples’ money to benefit us? H*** yes!”

      1. Chet said the court ruling involved only civil marriage, and that churches and other religious institutions do not have to perform them.

        “The court also concluded that the denial of this right constitutes discrimination,” Culver said. “Therefore, after careful consideration and a thorough reading of the court’s decision, I am reluctant to support amending the Iowa Constitution to add a provision that our Supreme Court has said is unlawful and discriminatory.”

        “As Governor, I must respect the authority of the Iowa Supreme Court, and have a duty to uphold the Constitution of the State of Iowa. I also fully respect the right of all Iowans to live under the full protection of Iowa’s Constitution.

        “I urge Iowans who hold beliefs on all sides of this issue to exhibit respect and good will. Our state faces many serious challenges. We are in the midst of a serious economic recession. Tens of thousands of our fellow Iowans are without work. We have suffered the worst natural disasters and most difficult recovery our state has ever faced. We must join together and redouble our efforts to work toward solutions that will help Iowans in this time of uncertainty. That is where, I believe, my focus and energies should lie. “Let us not lose sight of the fact that we are all Iowans, all neighbors, united in the promise and faith of a brighter future for our state. Let us all work together toward that common goal.”



        Now get back to work…like Tim Geithner, prompt taxpayer and Secretary of the U.S. Treasury.

    1.    The christian conservatives might want to re-think their unwavering support for the Party of the Elephant.  

        Of the five states to legalize same sex marriage to date (I include CA because it was legal there for at least six months), four of the five had Republican governors at the time.

        The theocrats are getting a really good return on their investment!

  2. very compelling article from HuffPo

    You’ve had 20 years since the start of the web, 15 years since the creation of the commercial browser and craigslist, a decade since the birth of blogs and Google to understand the changes in the media economy and the new behaviors of the next generation of – as you call them, Mr. Murdoch – net natives. You’ve had all that time to reinvent your products, services, and organizations for this new world, to take advantage of new opportunities and efficiencies, to retrain not only your staff but your readers and advertisers, to use the power of your megaphones while you still had it to build what would come next. But you didn’t.

    You blew it.

    He then gooes on to catalog how they kept pretending that the world has not change. And after laying out in detail that litany of mistakes and where they presently find themselves, logically concludes with…

    So now, for many of you, there isn’t time. It’s simply too late. The best thing some of you can do is get out of the way and make room for the next generation of net natives who understand this new economy and society and care about news and will reinvent it, building what comes after you from the ground up. There’s huge opportunity there, for them.

    What’s interesting is he makes a compelling argument that an existing newspaper now finds itself at a disadvantage with a start-up that is going to take a more effective approach to news delivery.

    If I was at the Post I would either take early retirement (paging Mr. Ewegen) or start looking for a job outside of traditional newspapers.

    1. yes.

      Not only is the Post website a nightmare to navigate, I’m not sure what if anything useful is in the Post that I don’t find out somewhere else faster, with less pain and usually with better writing.  

      1. Cobble together a grubstake and start your own.

        The Post provides you free web access to their content, I recommend they single out your types and block your access unless you provide a monthly direct deposit from your bank account.

        Or am I wrong and they owe you free and uber fast access to all their media including every single photo they take or mic’d recording they make?

        1. though I don’t see what anyone else in your family has to do with it.

          The Post owes me nothing personal.

          I’d argue they owe something to the community at large including me- truth and the 4th estate and all that.

          They could start charging access fees tomorrow- and I suspect very few would pay. And I think they believe this too or they would start charging.

          And the whole point is I don’t need to start my own news paper- though if I thought I could see a way to do profitably I might.  I have more news than I ever had.

          Why exactly do I need the Post?

          Oh- that’s right, in depth coverage of the soon to be 5-11 Broncos.

          The question was is it too late for the Post to alter their business model to survive in what appear to be perilous times for the print media.  I answered the question – you chose to belittle me without answering the question.

  3. from Bloomberg

    A congressional panel overseeing the U.S. financial rescue suggested that getting rid of top executives and liquidating problem banks may be a better way to solve the economic crisis.

    Why is it that in this country that is the number 1 advocate of free enterprise we take the exact opposite approach with these large institutions? You know the world is turned upside down when a Harvard professor is the one advocating for the free market approach and wall street is screaming for government subsidies.

    1. Do we really need a Maxine Water’s style Congressional panel, who’s function is to oversee porkulus handouts and maximize generational theft, advocate for government confiscation when the U.S. Bankruptcy Court is available just for that purpose?



      Tim Geithner, prompt taxpayer and U.S. Treasury Secretary

    2. At least since I’ve been paying attention ten years ago, when they first suggested investing all that Social Security money in the market to keep those who were already in afloat.

      As for Harvard professors… Remember, Larry Summers is a Harvard professor too.

  4. two other names that will leave the Senate early: Groff and Isgar.  Isgar is finishing his last term but is likely to get a Region 8 Dept. of Ag job – could actually come before this session is over.

    1. Obviously Ritter won’t have any part of Jimbo in his administration due to his energy problems, job destruction and all the other western slope conflict the Guv has created for himself.

      I keep hearing that Groff is Administration bound, the question would be D.C. or a regional job.

  5. Daniel Kagan went to the mic recently on behalf of Kefalas’ (yet another) study on single payer health care.  Not sure that Kefalas’ bill is the way to go.  But it brought out passion in Kagan.  However, he is very formal in delivery and it is a style not typical of a Colorado General Assembly speech.  It is not because of his accent, but his manner is a more formal speechmaking style.  Nonetheless, I was appalled to later see Republican legislators in the lobby, very loudly making fun of him.  Grow up boys! You are an embarassment to the state.  Your maturity matches that of a middle schooler.

    1. back in December and January when wags discussed whether Carroll would be willing to give up his speaker’s chair to take the appointment. It’s still the rumor.

  6. Just hoping the fact that they read this and see that others view their behavior negatively as a wake up call to stop diminishing the integrity of the institution with their antics.  

    1. He hasn’t committed to supporting it yet, pending the shape it’s in if it comes to a vote. And with Lincoln and Specter voting against cloture, supporters still might be shy the 60 votes needed to bring it to the floor.

        1. That’s what the “conservadems” have decided. Everything will be filibustered. We can’t use reconciliation or any other parliamentary maneuvers on our side to counter the parliamentary maneuvers the other side has.

          As Democrats, apparently we just think it’s unfair for us to have a majority.  

            1. but it seems like one voice with respect to the reconciliation tactic. I don’t know if Bayh’s group all signed that letter saying Republicans should be able to filibuster the climate change bill, but I’m sure most did.

              Insofar as they speak with one voice on anything, that’s what they seem to be saying.

              1. is that they believe they should follow the rules of the Senate. And I agree with them on that. If you’re going to play games with the rules then you might as well just toss the rules out as they exist only when you want them to.

                1. As I recall, I asked you what the difference was between a parliamentary maneuver like the filibuster and a parliamentary maneuver like reconciliation.

                  And as I recall you never even attempted to answer this question.

                  1. filibuster

                    In current practice, Senate Rule 22 permits filibusters in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses.

                    reconciliation

                    Reconciliation is a legislative process of the United States Senate intended to allow a contentious budget bill to be considered without being subject to filibuster.

                    1. Wikipedia works both ways.

                      Until 1996, reconciliation was limited to deficit reduction, but in 1996 the Senate adopted a precedent to apply reconciliation to any legislation affecting the budget, even legislation that would worsen the deficit. Under the administration of President George W. Bush Congress used reconciliation to enact three major tax cuts. Efforts to use reconciliation to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling failed because these initiatives did not meet the criteria of the reconciliation process.

                      It’s not just for budget bills, it’s for any spending bill.

                      Want to try again?

          1. The safe vote for a moderate is to vote for cloture because you want to discuss it and then decide if you will vote for it – get the union support.

            It fails to gain 60 votes and so, wink-wink, business is fine with your vote.

            1. The safe vote for a moderate is not to vote at all (to paraphrase the War Games computer). That is, you tell Harry Reid that you would vote against cloture if he proposes it, and six of your dear Senate friends have promised the same thing, so he shouldn’t even bring it up for a vote because it would just be embarrassing.

              That seems to be how they’ve done this in the past. Reid’s sat on a number of bills because he knew he didn’t have the votes in advance.

        1. because we eat our own, and there’s nothing Democrats hate more than having Democrats in charge.

          Most of our conservadems think it’s tragically unfair that Dems have 58 senators, and think it’d be fairer if had 48 or 49 or so.

  7. Fox News’ “tea party.” Revolution as a marketing tool, complete with a corporate sponsor.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

    Nothing like using the corporate machine to incite protests to drum up ratings, and to cover their complete lack of anything resembling journalistic integrity. Fair and Balanced. That must be some killer weed they’re smoking.  

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

178 readers online now

Newsletter

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