Squarestate - Recent Comments

I can't wait

Fong — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 22:44:34 GMT

to hear what he has to say about unions!

But we only have two choices and he's better than McInnis. He'd better hope he doesn't piss of too many vols cos the Repubs will be out in force this year.

Hick will also raise more money (as indicated by what he's quoted as saying in your diary.

You're right...

Just Anita — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 20:41:34 GMT

The caucus results showed a lot of smaller Counties dotted around the State.

That basically nails it...

Just Anita — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 20:25:32 GMT

This is so fucked up

Fong — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 18:05:42 GMT

I don't know what else to say.

Caucus...

Just Anita — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:14:06 GMT

...is not the primary. Moving on....

Logic "S"?

Just Anita — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:06:04 GMT

Your logic defies reason. No one can dispute your points, because you have NO points. Dispute what - your ignorance to what's being discussed? Here's a visual: you - dog chasing it's tail, only to bite itself in the ass. Your passion is the only thing that has warranted a comment from anyone, because people on this site actually think you care about learning something. This is a civically connected courteous group. It's a place to engage in debate and dialogue - not diatribe. Your opinions are nothing but pointless diatribe.

You've blown your cover as a young, dumb, full-of-(you fill in the rhyme) neophyte in political and systemic processes. You've been given enough rope to hang yourself, and now it's time to apologize, whimper away, or just start playing nicey-nicey with the grassroots on this site.

StrykerK2, please, man: stop & think for a second.

rnoboa — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:29:38 GMT

No one has actually been able to dispute the points I brought up

[head-desk] [head-desk]

OK, this is where I quit being polite. Despite what you may think, plenty of people have been able to dispute the points you brought up. You just don't want to accept it. You know why?

BECAUSE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE CAUCUS PROCESS!

Seriously - it's not an election! I don't know how more clearly I can put this! You know what the main point of the caucus is? Electing precinct committee people. The secondary point is holding a "beauty contest" - in other words, a meaningless election.

Meaningless because we hold a primary in Colorado to actually decide who the Democratic and Republican candidates for state office are. I mean, take a second, and actually think - did you hear about a caucus for Treasurer on the Republican side, where 3 candidates are running? No? You know why?

BECAUSE IT'S MEANINGLESS. In the greater scheme of things, it means nothing, and accomplishes nothing. They could've had one, and it would've accomplished squat.

This is what I've tried to tell you all along, as have others. The caucus doesn't do anything here in Colorado - the one thing that it actually affects, ballot placement and access, can be accomplished through alternative means (coin flip and petitioning).

If Romanoff wins the state assembly, you know what he gets? A big bowl of squat. He doesn't get anything - no official party support, no endorsement, nothing. That's why I tell candidates I advise to just get the 30% needed to get on the ballot, and then concentrate on the things I outlined earlier.

Sorry if the truth hurts. You're welcome to dismiss my arguments if you want, but I know what I'm talking about and you don't. It's not "spin" for me to say that your argument is objectively wrong because you don't understand how the process works.

Special investigator and prosecutor needed

gsburt — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:58:24 GMT

Can you really expect the Adams County Sheriff and the Adams County DA to objectively prosecute a case that will cause great damage to their own political party in Adams County? Democrats can't be expected to investigate criminal activity within their own local party organization.

Sheriff Doug Darr and DA Don Quick need to call in a special investigator and a special prosecutor for this case.

good point

StrykerK2 — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:47:01 GMT

Just Anita,

I'm glad we can agree on some things here. I'll be honest that I hadn't considered the Citizens United and fetus personhood issues together, but you raise some frightening points.

I was concerned enough about the direct repercussions of corporations being considered people, let alone that it opens up "personhood" to a pretty broad interpretation.

no...

StrykerK2 — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:40:56 GMT

you said you weren't comfortable with caucus goers speaking for anything and that you are more comfortable with someone outside the state speaking for us. I guess that's why you like Bennet: it was pretty embarrassing watching Ritter take him around the state introducing him to his constituents.

Your disdain for the democratic base is pretty clear.

I've been saying all along that this isn't proof Romanoff will win the primary. I said it shows that the Bennet machine failed to win the first vote despite everything he had going for him.

I also care about keeping the democratic majority. That's one reason why I'm supporting the guy who polling shows has best chance to take on Norton or Buck in November.

Bettin'.."S" has a hard time

Just Anita — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:27:00 GMT

With screwy numbers. I'm thinking you'd have a better time explaining yourself to the couch he was napping on before he went off on you. I got your point, and you're on target.

what flawed argument?

StrykerK2 — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:23:47 GMT

Here's what I keep hearing (on Pols and SS): Bennet lost because it was a vote held in Romanoff's backyard. If you want to keep pushing that point, feel free. In other words you're saying Andrew's backyard is the democratic base and that Bennet can't compete to win democrats.

I keep seeing the Bennet campaign try to spin that point along with supporters, but it doesn't change the fact that he lost the first election of democratic voters.

I'll ask you the same thing I asked Ray Springfield and the others who have been pounding Bennet talking points for months: where is my logic flawed rnoboa? If you think having the support of Democrats in Colorado is an unfair advantage for Romanoff I don't know what to tell you. Elections work by building support to get people to vote for you. It's pretty simple. Romanoff built more support than Bennet. If you think having the power of OFA, the DSCC, and other groups behind Bennet isn't important, why does the Bennet campaign keep talking about it?

Bennet's goal was 30%? If you want to talk about spin, that takes the cake. The Bennet campaign played to win -- not place. Despite everything they had behind them, they lost. Bennet is a weak candidate. For months polls have showed that Romanoff is the stronger general election candidate. Now we have the first test of democratic voters and again it showed Romanoff to be stronger.

Sorry if you don't like my post. You're welcome to not comment on it (or not read it at all). No one has actually been able to dispute the points I brought up. The only argument they have managed is that Romanoff won because he has more support. On that point, I'll concede.

Tea?

Just Anita — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:18:32 GMT

Another caveat...

Just Anita — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:33:52 GMT

The "party" itself is essentially a PAC, and a corporation. The GOP won't hesitate to jump on that one, if AR's campaign starts accepting these donations.

No mistakes..

Just Anita — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:16:20 GMT

Just support. The Dems have a primary, and we all have months to decide who will best represent us in Nov. It's all good.

You're being corrected...

Just Anita — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:10:38 GMT

Both take PACs.

Sanders....

Just Anita — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:08:10 GMT

I worked on Sanders Mayor race, as my first 3-rd party campaign in VT. My husband and I lived there for 8 years during the 90's. Still close with Jeffords and Sanders. Sanders was first elected as Mayor of Burlington supporting State benefits for same sex partners. I won't give you too many tips, since I'm a Bennet supporter (LOL), but the answer to your B. Sanders PAC question is "Yes". PACs come in different shapes and sizes, just as corporate contributions come in different shapes and sizes.

Sanders contributions past and present reflect resources from "social action groups made up of progressive companies and individuals". As such there are certainly some corporate contributions within those PAC's from "people policy oriented" businesses, like Ben and Jerry's, Cabot Cheese, Tubbs Snowshoes, etc.

Andrew's "no corporate $$" campaign is great in theory, but it dismisses people oriented businesses that are both good employers and good for our economy. His campaign strategy has backed him into a difficult position. Again, just my perspective.

Again with the attacks

Bettin' on Bennet — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:55:32 GMT

Yes, I caucused. Because I am one of those tuned in people. And I wish more people were. I am not insulting caucus goers, I love them. Heck, I wish the caucus goers did speak for the electorate. But, let's face it, it's not a scientific sample. For example, in my room, half the people supported Romanoff. But the delegates coming out of there were largely for Bennet. So at assembly, I am thinking Bennet will take it. I'm not gloating about that, I'm just reporting the math.

But none of that means anybody will win the primary. Primary wins are based on a much larger group of voters, and I suspect Bennet will break out some of that money around that time. But hey, prove me wrong, go make a donation to the Romanoff campaign right now. That will help him more than insulting me.

Slippery sword...

Just Anita — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:30:26 GMT

Excellent perspective. A few of us constitution geeks have been tweaking the logic sequence of SCOTUS corporate personhood rulings, and the growing number of fetus personhood factions pushing for their measure at the State level.

Most of us pro-choice Dems, were enraged with the pro-corporate personhood SCOTUS ruling in Citizens United v FEC. This perked up the "fetus personhood" faction's ears. They don't agree that "corporations are people too" - as well. But then, the envelope gets pushed by this group for "fetus" protection within human Constitutional interpretation.

Any Constitutional amendement to define "human" after the Roberts' court ruling could open pandora's box for the "fetus personhood" faction to overturn Roe v Wade. As this process moves along it might be a good idea to really watch the "fetus faction" in their push to interpret "human" within our Constitution. Any thoughts?

3 Cheers...

Just Anita — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:37:11 GMT

...For giving Strykerk a lesson in civic engagement.

Onward and upward....

Just Anita — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:23:13 GMT

It's campaign season!

Dude, seriously, STOP IT.

rnoboa — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 06:21:42 GMT

You posted the same diary at Colorado Pols, and you had umpteen people tell you that your premise was flawed, and yet you still keep on hammering the same point.

So let me be the eleventy-first: Romanoff won because caucus goers are predominantly made up of folks who are predisposed to support Romanoff, thanks to his years of involvement in the state Democratic Party.

Period. No more, no less.

Bennet decided to mobilize for caucus most likely as an organizational dry run for contacting voters during an all-mail primary, primarily, and as a rehearsal for county and state conventions, secondarily.

Now, I'm not involved with the Bennet campaign, but my guess (based on my own prior experience doing this) is that their goal was 30%, which puts them on the ballot. Anything else was gravy. Their main objective was seeing where there were kinks in the machine in order to fix those kinks and be maximally effective in doing voter contact, voter ID, and GOTV prior to the all-mail primary.

That's the response. I know that it doesn't fit your pre-determined conclusion that Bennet's campaign is a disaster, but that's the response.

At this point, you're essentially trolling, and as someone who's been here for all iterations of the site since 2005, I'll politely ask you to please stop. As a long time participant here, I'd like to keep discussions here from devolving as they sometimes do over in Pols - and that goes for both sides.

So, please - either contribute something brand new to the discussion here, or stop. You've now had several people respond to you telling you why your analysis is flawed on two blogs, and you've basically refused to listen. That's trollish behavior, it's disrespectful and I won't condone it.

Personhood...historical perspective...

Michael David — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 06:04:19 GMT

When I think back over the development of this issue, there is an obvious rule that is often overlooked in the heated debate about personhood.

No one ever considered a fetus a person until the "Moral Majority" (actually a minority) made issue of it.

Prior to that time (1980) the overwhelming consensus was that a Birth Certificate was the rite of passage into personhood and citizenship.

The loss of a fetus was sad, but few if any ever thought that the fetus was a person with human rights.

The issue of a woman's right to choose is even more poignant in a world over-populated with humans; the attempts by the right wing moralists/ideologues to take away this right of women over their own bodies bodes disaster for a planetary ecosystem already stressed beyond the point of sustainability.

We must fight these idiots and win; the imposition of their morality on the rest of the population is nothing less than the tyranny of the minority.

my bad

StrykerK2 — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:21:15 GMT

Just Anita-

I was responding to you on another post and blurred you and Bettin' on Bennet with my first comment on 3rd person. My bad on that one.

That should be directed at Bettin' -- who apparently doesn't think caucus goers have any value.

Guess that happens when I blog after napping on the couch for a bit -- I confuse two posters when neither make any sense.

Ray Ray Ray

StrykerK2 — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:11:21 GMT

Would you care to provide any evidence for claims like "he claimed to be a civil rights lawyer" or would you just prefer to keep making up random crap?