Headline of the Daily Camera, "Council Shift may hamper convention center."
If you have been paying attention, this council is firmly against a downtown convention center. The city voters in rejecting out of towner pro-growthers like Shaun Coleman for council. There is a radical difference between the pro-growth Ruzzin council and the current council. Those on council who would vote against a downtown convention center:
Macon Cowles
Shaun McGrath
Crystal Gray
Susan Osborne
Lisa Morzel
further, Matt Apple would probably eventually vote against the thing as well. Just like current Wash School proposal the downtown convention center is dead dead dead. Ignorant David Thielen thinks the new council made no difference, but this is one issue where clearly the vote made a difference.
The real question is whether the council will be wishy-washy and support further study of this unwanted project.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Liberal and Loving David Thielin endorses Republican
David has come out on his blog as endorsing Republican Bob Greenlee to replace Democrat Claire Levy in the statehouse. Read about it here.
Don Kirlin's fantasy world - 100 percent acurate prediction
This case isn't going to settle. MiG pilot Donnie in the Post:
"Don Kirlin told The Post he believes they wanted so much of the lot so that the rest would not be big enough to build on. The Kirlins own a neighboring lot but had planned to sell one of the two in order to finance construction of their 'dream home,' he said. 'I would question the ethics and morality of somebody who thinks it's OK to take a neighbor's property,' he said."
Don and Suzy think they are in negotiations with McLean over the lot. But if you tell the other side they are immoral, then your not going into settlement negotiations with the right attitude. For some reason, the Kirlin's think because they are getting blogger support, they are going to win this thing.
I've got news for you Don, you have already lost. If you want to enter into negotiations where you might actually get something, you need to start eating some humble pie. Otherwise, you will get exactly what you got now. Your lawyer must think your nuts for continuing to make these types of statements to the paper. If anything, you should be quiet, and maybe you'll get something from McLean. But Don is clearly an egomaniac, and its unlikely that he can conduct himself civilly in negotiations.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Kirlin's fantasy house
Suzy Kirlin says in the Camera:
"Several neighbors nearby held a protest of what they called a "land grab" after a judge ruled in McLean and Stevens' favor. Susie Kirlin says she thinks McLean and Stevens are willing to strike a deal to quell the public backlash surrounding the case, according to the report in the Daily Camera."
Susie and her rich MiG pilot husband are truly high if they think approaching settlement negotiations with this attitude will get them anything. The Kirlin's position going into settlement is really weak, and going into settlement negotiations with a pompous attitude that both of these spoiled brats have is unlikely to get them anywhere.
First, the Kirlin's should know that their chances on appeal are minimal, very few civil cases are overturned on appeal. Moreover, the Kirlin's have no legal arguments in their favor. The issues that the bloggers care about are mainly bs, and were never raised in the trial proceedings, so they can't be raised on appeal. The Kirlin's are really only complaining about factual issues. But these cannot be overturned on appeal. Remember, the judge found the Kirlin's to be liars.
Second, the public backlash against McLean and Stevens is minimal. Bloggers on the Daily Camera web page are not exactly reflective of community attitudes, and people of substance in this town really don't give a hoot. The bloggers are the same people over and over again, and the lazy Daily Camera reporters have made no effort to verify the fact that McLean and Stevens reputation in the community really has not been hurt at all. As reported earlier, most of those who are blogging or protesting are doing so because of various child custody disputes they have with the Courts. If you view the video of protesters, you are not viewing a video of community leaders or other people of substance in the community. You are just viewing a MiG pilot and his loony friends. Most people don't shout down the neighbors at protests, so the protestors have proven to be on the fringe. If anything Stevens is over-reacting to the supposed community backlash and she should just chill. In any event, this is not going to be a reason to settle.
Third, the Kirlin's will have to post an appeal bond. While these rich MiG pilots may be able to afford it, it is a real burden to have to put down an appeal bond prior to filing an appeal. McLean know this, and the incentive to negotiate prior to the appeal being filed will be minimal.
Fourth, its pretty clear the Kirlin's are lying about who offered five feet. Its clear that they were offered to settle for five feet, and now conveniently have forgotten that it was they who rejected the offer. This will not put the other side in the mood to settle. Remember the judge found the Kirlin's to be liars, so they are probably lying about this too.
So given all of this, the incentive to settle by McLean and Stevens is minimal at best. However, McLean is about a straight shooter as one can get. So my bet is that he does settle for the five feet offer, though if he is smart, he might require a public apology from the Kirlin's, oh, and attorney fees.
"Several neighbors nearby held a protest of what they called a "land grab" after a judge ruled in McLean and Stevens' favor. Susie Kirlin says she thinks McLean and Stevens are willing to strike a deal to quell the public backlash surrounding the case, according to the report in the Daily Camera."
Susie and her rich MiG pilot husband are truly high if they think approaching settlement negotiations with this attitude will get them anything. The Kirlin's position going into settlement is really weak, and going into settlement negotiations with a pompous attitude that both of these spoiled brats have is unlikely to get them anywhere.
First, the Kirlin's should know that their chances on appeal are minimal, very few civil cases are overturned on appeal. Moreover, the Kirlin's have no legal arguments in their favor. The issues that the bloggers care about are mainly bs, and were never raised in the trial proceedings, so they can't be raised on appeal. The Kirlin's are really only complaining about factual issues. But these cannot be overturned on appeal. Remember, the judge found the Kirlin's to be liars.
Second, the public backlash against McLean and Stevens is minimal. Bloggers on the Daily Camera web page are not exactly reflective of community attitudes, and people of substance in this town really don't give a hoot. The bloggers are the same people over and over again, and the lazy Daily Camera reporters have made no effort to verify the fact that McLean and Stevens reputation in the community really has not been hurt at all. As reported earlier, most of those who are blogging or protesting are doing so because of various child custody disputes they have with the Courts. If you view the video of protesters, you are not viewing a video of community leaders or other people of substance in the community. You are just viewing a MiG pilot and his loony friends. Most people don't shout down the neighbors at protests, so the protestors have proven to be on the fringe. If anything Stevens is over-reacting to the supposed community backlash and she should just chill. In any event, this is not going to be a reason to settle.
Third, the Kirlin's will have to post an appeal bond. While these rich MiG pilots may be able to afford it, it is a real burden to have to put down an appeal bond prior to filing an appeal. McLean know this, and the incentive to negotiate prior to the appeal being filed will be minimal.
Fourth, its pretty clear the Kirlin's are lying about who offered five feet. Its clear that they were offered to settle for five feet, and now conveniently have forgotten that it was they who rejected the offer. This will not put the other side in the mood to settle. Remember the judge found the Kirlin's to be liars, so they are probably lying about this too.
So given all of this, the incentive to settle by McLean and Stevens is minimal at best. However, McLean is about a straight shooter as one can get. So my bet is that he does settle for the five feet offer, though if he is smart, he might require a public apology from the Kirlin's, oh, and attorney fees.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Strip Club to Open in Tom's Tavern
Well nothing is happening worth blogging about, and then, a strip club opens on the mall! (If you if you think I'm going to blog about the congressional race for 8 months like dill-weed David Thielin is on his right wing Rush Limbaugh clone blog for 8 months, forgetaboutit).
The Bustop can't compete with a downtown club, so they are looking at going upscale and downtown. Why not Tom's Tavern. The home of the crappiest food in Boulder will continue to offer crappy employment to young women, waiting tables or stripping at Tom's, same difference. Tom's staff has no love for the place, expect few tears.
Washington School is hot. If the petition is ruled valid, it will require the City Council to reconsider a zoning change that allowed the project to go forward. If elected leaders decline to reverse that decision, the matter will go to voters — either next November, or sooner if a two-thirds majority of the council agrees to schedule a special election.
Idiots like Thielin think the council election changed nothing. Washington School will prove how different this council is from the last nasty council. The Wash School project is now officially dead, until the greedy developer starts working with the neighborhood on an acceptable project. The questions is how tone deaf is Jim Leach. He must realize this council will overturn the zoning change and he is back to square one. If he is smart, he will cave; expect a very fun council meeting where Wash School goes down.
The Bustop can't compete with a downtown club, so they are looking at going upscale and downtown. Why not Tom's Tavern. The home of the crappiest food in Boulder will continue to offer crappy employment to young women, waiting tables or stripping at Tom's, same difference. Tom's staff has no love for the place, expect few tears.
Washington School is hot. If the petition is ruled valid, it will require the City Council to reconsider a zoning change that allowed the project to go forward. If elected leaders decline to reverse that decision, the matter will go to voters — either next November, or sooner if a two-thirds majority of the council agrees to schedule a special election.
Idiots like Thielin think the council election changed nothing. Washington School will prove how different this council is from the last nasty council. The Wash School project is now officially dead, until the greedy developer starts working with the neighborhood on an acceptable project. The questions is how tone deaf is Jim Leach. He must realize this council will overturn the zoning change and he is back to square one. If he is smart, he will cave; expect a very fun council meeting where Wash School goes down.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
David Thielin is the Rush Limbaugh of Boulder
Republican liberal poseur continues to insist he is conducting an online debate for the Second CD. As soon as the candidates learn about who David really is, they will have no interest in participating in an online debate with this Rush Limbaugh clone. Call the candidates and tell them not to participate in this Rush clone's debate farce.
Second, he manipulates the news FoxNews like. Read what progressive Boulder city council member Macon Cowels says about David in the Camera. "Candidate Macon Cowles announced he wouldn't participate in protest of a Thielen post that labeled the slate of candidates endorsed by civic group PLAN-Boulder County the "mediocre seven." Thielen later apologized and re-wrote the post, which he said was poorly written. He said he used the word "mediocre" to refer to the breadth and depth of PLAN-Boulder County's slate of candidates, not the contenders themselves.
But Cowles said that as the one-man operator of his Web site, Thielen has the power to color the picture of candidates that voters receive, and he's not convinced he'll be fair.
"I would not give Rush Limbaugh the chance to distort my record or my views, and I will not give that chance to Thielen, who is not 'Liberal and loving it!' as proclaimed on his masthead," Cowles wrote in an e-mail explaining his decision. "Thielen's forum is a setup, so that Thielen will claim an air of legitimacy when he ultimately endorses the candidates that he has been fawning over since Day One both online and in public."
Finally, David and his family are conservatives. The only thing that David has ever taken a liberal stand on is global warming. So what? Otherwise, he is a libertarian that doesn't support any of the policies advanced by the Second CD candidates.Apparently David Thielen comes from good old Republican stock.
Thielen is the daughter of longtime Windward Republican Rep. Cynthia Thielen, who ran unsuccessfully against U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka. Laura Thielen managed her mother's campaign. (see below)I urge you to write both the Jared Polis and Bill Schafroth campaigns and ask them pull out of the despicable David Thielin's online debate. His blog has no journalistic value or integrity, and any serious candidate should ignore his blog and online debate. You can contact the congressional candidates that have agreed to the online debate at:
Jared Polis Email info@polisforcongress.com
Mail
PO BOX 4572 Boulder, CO 80306
303-381-0121
Shafroth for Congress
P.O. Box 982
Boulder, CO 80306
(303) 681-6333
Monday, November 26, 2007
David Thielin is a Republican
Thought you all would be interested in this little tidbit I came across. David Thielen is the Boulder blogosphere's liberal-poser and master of guilt by association and, guess what? Apparently David Thielen comes from good old Republican stock.
Thielen is the daughter of longtime Windward Republican Rep. Cynthia Thielen, who ran unsuccessfully against U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka. Laura Thielen managed her mother's campaign. (see below)
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
End is near for Leach's Washington School project
The Washington School project is not long for this earth in its current form. The new progressive city council sent many signals that they are looking for a way to reverse Ruzzin's decision to allow the project to go forward. Despite the election of Wilson, there appear to be at least four votes to overturn the Washington School decision. They are Osborne, Macon, Matt, Crystal. One would assume that Lisa is also on board with council reopening the Washington School debate.
Matt A and Macon led the charge last night in pushing the city attorney to come up with a legal way for the council to overturn the prior council's decision. This may not be possible, the developer has a reasonable expectation of finality, and both new councilmen realize that current council may not be able to reverse the decision.
However, there is always the ballot. Leach's expectations of finality of the decision may only be a decision by council. If the petition drive succeeds, council may feel that they can preempt a ballot initiative and do what the petitioners want. However, without the petition, council may feel constrained.
So keep gathering those signatures. This new council will respond, and Leach's Washington School plans are not going to happen.
Matt A and Macon led the charge last night in pushing the city attorney to come up with a legal way for the council to overturn the prior council's decision. This may not be possible, the developer has a reasonable expectation of finality, and both new councilmen realize that current council may not be able to reverse the decision.
However, there is always the ballot. Leach's expectations of finality of the decision may only be a decision by council. If the petition drive succeeds, council may feel that they can preempt a ballot initiative and do what the petitioners want. However, without the petition, council may feel constrained.
So keep gathering those signatures. This new council will respond, and Leach's Washington School plans are not going to happen.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Polis to pull out of online debate
Latest word from the campaign for second CD is that Polis will not participate in the online debate scheduled to be held by Thielin on his blog. Apparently, according to sources, their are two reasons Polis' campaign has decided to withdraw. (Polis is in Iraq).
First, the campaign read Theilin's attack on Claire Levy and endorsement of Bob Greenlee to run against her as a Republican and decided that he is not balanced and as a libertarian, not fit to moderate his one-man show "debate."
Second, sources say that his support of the Kirlin's and their loony supporters proved to be too adamant and uncivil. the campaign is convinced that David Thielin is the "George Bush of Liberals" and is unfit to provide a public platform.
Finally, the campaign was convinced by Macon Cowles analysis of thielin's blog. Clearly Thielin is setting up Polis for some bashing:
Candidate Macon Cowlesannounced he wouldn't participate in protest of a Thielen post that labeled the slate of candidates endorsed by civic group PLAN-Boulder County the "mediocre seven."
First, the campaign read Theilin's attack on Claire Levy and endorsement of Bob Greenlee to run against her as a Republican and decided that he is not balanced and as a libertarian, not fit to moderate his one-man show "debate."
Second, sources say that his support of the Kirlin's and their loony supporters proved to be too adamant and uncivil. the campaign is convinced that David Thielin is the "George Bush of Liberals" and is unfit to provide a public platform.
Finally, the campaign was convinced by Macon Cowles analysis of thielin's blog. Clearly Thielin is setting up Polis for some bashing:
Candidate Macon Cowlesannounced he wouldn't participate in protest of a Thielen post that labeled the slate of candidates endorsed by civic group PLAN-Boulder County the "mediocre seven."
Thielen later apologized and re-wrote the post, which he said was poorly written. He said he used the word "mediocre" to refer to the breadth and depth of PLAN-Boulder County's slate of candidates, not the contenders themselves.
But Cowles said that as the one-man operator of his Web site, Thielen has the power to color the picture of candidates that voters receive, and he's not convinced he'll be fair.
"I would not give Rush Limbaugh the chance to distort my record or my views, and I will not give that chance to Thielen, who is not 'Liberal and loving it!' as proclaimed on his masthead," Cowles wrote in an e-mail explaining his decision. "Thielen's forum is a setup, so that Thielen will claim an air of legitimacy when he ultimately endorses the candidates that he has been fawning over since Day One both online and in public."
Urge Daily Kos to kick rightie David Thielin
Please write and urge www.dailykos.com to kick off David Thielin's posts from his web page. Kos is an important liberal national blog that covers national issues, with some local flavor. David pretends to be a Boulder liberal, writing on Kos that he is typical Boulder, yet Thielin is promoting Republican candidate Bob Greenlee, who has run against the great Mark Udall several times for Congress, as the candidate against our great liberal State Represnative Claire Levy.
you can reach Kos at http://www.dailykos.com/contactus
I suggest you send Kos the following message.
One of the diaries on your sight is from an extreme wingnut blogger that is supporting a Republican candidate against our progressive state representative Claire Levy. You can view what he has said about Claire in this post. http://www.davidthielen.info/politics/2007/11/claire-ms-arrog.html
As you can see from his post, Mr. Thielin is not a progressive, and really has no place having a diary on dailykos. While we all deserve a forum, these Republican attitudes probably are not best expressed through an important blog such as dailykos.
Because David is supporting Bob Greenelee Repbulcian run against liberal Democrat Levy, Thielin has no place on www.dailykos.com.
Also, write Jarid Polis and urge him to drop out of Thielin's online Democratic Party online debate for the Second CD. There is no need for Polis to participate in the FoxNews of Boulder online debate, its neither fair, balanced, or has any integrity.
And, you can contact David directly to let him know how you feel about his supporting a Republican State legislature.
you can reach Kos at http://www.dailykos.com/contactus
I suggest you send Kos the following message.
One of the diaries on your sight is from an extreme wingnut blogger that is supporting a Republican candidate against our progressive state representative Claire Levy. You can view what he has said about Claire in this post. http://www.davidthielen.info/politics/2007/11/claire-ms-arrog.html
As you can see from his post, Mr. Thielin is not a progressive, and really has no place having a diary on dailykos. While we all deserve a forum, these Republican attitudes probably are not best expressed through an important blog such as dailykos.
Because David is supporting Bob Greenelee Repbulcian run against liberal Democrat Levy, Thielin has no place on www.dailykos.com.
Also, write Jarid Polis and urge him to drop out of Thielin's online Democratic Party online debate for the Second CD. There is no need for Polis to participate in the FoxNews of Boulder online debate, its neither fair, balanced, or has any integrity.
And, you can contact David directly to let him know how you feel about his supporting a Republican State legislature.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Daily Camera Crystal Nacht Part II
Nazi's like David Thielin probably don't appreciate Chris Brauchli's column below. In fact, Thielin probably doesn't know who Brauchli is, or that he was a columnist for the Camera for 25 years. For the rest of you, read it.
Subject: The disgracing of The Boulder Daily Camera
Reply-To: Christopher Brauchli's Weekly Column
The disgracing of The Boulder Daily Camera
Discuss this column at: http://humanraceandothersports.com/columns/395#comment
. . .
Clint: I have followed with dismay as the Camera has pursued a downward spiral ever since Colleen Conant left. I have watched as it proclaimed such significant changes as putting all local news in the first section and international news in the second section, and then proceeding to totally ignore its new format. I have watched as you struggled with the best location for “Dear Abby”. . . . I have watched as you have shrunk the editorial page until it consists of few editorials and fewer op ed columns. . . .
But of all those sad changes, none can compare to the contemptible behavior you have displayed during the last three weeks with respect to Judge Dick McLean and Edie Stevens.
Although I am in the same law firm as their lawyer and was a law partner with Edie many years ago, I have no familiarity with the details of their case. I know the outcome and like you, that is all I know. Like you, I have no knowledge of what, if any, discussions about settlement of the dispute took place. Like you, I am in the dark with respect to everything except the outcome. Unlike you, I have not because of my ignorance, inflamed the community and turned it into a howling mob and now a lynching party.
Bob Greenlee’s commentary was sufficient to awaken the mob. And you, in what has to be one of the most scurrilous examples of journalism ever seen in this town, have continued to feed the mob by making the story front-page news on an almost daily basis. Violating your own rules about “letters to the Editor” you have published an unending stream of letters attacking Dick and Edie even though most are duplicative and many vituperative. On Thursday the headline on the front page was “Couple will appeal ruling” and the accompanying story regurgitated the facts of the case. On Friday there was apparently nothing that you could dredge up to report so you wrote a “Who me?” editorial in which you first spell out what you perceived to be the outrageous conduct engaged in by the judge and the lawyer. You wrote: “As numerous observers have noted, it seems inappropriate for two ex-judges and an attorney-officers of the court-to have kno! wingly and “notoriously” trespassed on neighbors’ property with (apparently) the intent to seize it.” Thus having further incited the mob, you chastise it, piously proclaiming further in the editorial: “One needn’t excuse roguish behavior to urge zealous critics to take a deep breath . . .. [T]he critics’ extreme reaction discredits their cause.”
Clint, it is and has become the Camera’s cause. The very next day your headline has another front-page lead headline about Stevens’ reaction and next to it a discussion by lawyers of adverse possession to continue to inform and inflame. Today, Sunday, the front page advises the mob that there will be a lynching next door to the Stevens-McLean house on the empty lot that has been the subject of the lawsuit. You repeat all the facts about the case in case anyone is left in Boulder who has not heard the details you have so carefully repeated on a daily basis. You then publish the address of Edie and Dick and tell everyone they are invited to the lynching at noon today. You report that the aggrieved owner of the adjacent lot says she is buying lemonade to serve to those who show up for the lynching. Tomorrow morning I am confident your front page will have a picture of the lynching mob drinking lemonade and holding up signs attacking Dick and Edie. (Although this! is not about the mob, I would be remiss if I did not express my astonishment and dismay that a community that prides itself on its many liberal virtues would so quickly be seduced into rank thuggery by a two-bit newspaper.)
Clint, one hundred years ago in the South courageous people like you and others at the Camera incited mobs to lynching, piously proclaiming as will you, that you are simply reporting the facts and cannot help it if it inflames the public. Edie and Dick have received threatening e-mails and phone calls. The lawyer who represented them has received threatening e-mails and phone calls. And none of this would have been possible without your assistance.
Lest there be any mistake, I am not commenting on the merits of the respective positions of the parties. I do not know whether I would have followed the route chosen by Edie and Dick had I been in their shoes. I do know that because of what you have done the lives of those two people who have contributed so much to this community will never be the same. And for this they have not the court system or the lawyers to thank but you, Kevin Kaufman and the Boulder Daily Camera. You should hang your heads in shame. Chris Brauchli
Discuss this column at: http://humanraceandothersports.com/columns/395#comment
Subject: The disgracing of The Boulder Daily Camera
Reply-To: Christopher Brauchli's Weekly Column
The disgracing of The Boulder Daily Camera
Discuss this column at: http://humanraceandothersports.com/columns/395#comment
. . .
Clint: I have followed with dismay as the Camera has pursued a downward spiral ever since Colleen Conant left. I have watched as it proclaimed such significant changes as putting all local news in the first section and international news in the second section, and then proceeding to totally ignore its new format. I have watched as you struggled with the best location for “Dear Abby”. . . . I have watched as you have shrunk the editorial page until it consists of few editorials and fewer op ed columns. . . .
But of all those sad changes, none can compare to the contemptible behavior you have displayed during the last three weeks with respect to Judge Dick McLean and Edie Stevens.
Although I am in the same law firm as their lawyer and was a law partner with Edie many years ago, I have no familiarity with the details of their case. I know the outcome and like you, that is all I know. Like you, I have no knowledge of what, if any, discussions about settlement of the dispute took place. Like you, I am in the dark with respect to everything except the outcome. Unlike you, I have not because of my ignorance, inflamed the community and turned it into a howling mob and now a lynching party.
Bob Greenlee’s commentary was sufficient to awaken the mob. And you, in what has to be one of the most scurrilous examples of journalism ever seen in this town, have continued to feed the mob by making the story front-page news on an almost daily basis. Violating your own rules about “letters to the Editor” you have published an unending stream of letters attacking Dick and Edie even though most are duplicative and many vituperative. On Thursday the headline on the front page was “Couple will appeal ruling” and the accompanying story regurgitated the facts of the case. On Friday there was apparently nothing that you could dredge up to report so you wrote a “Who me?” editorial in which you first spell out what you perceived to be the outrageous conduct engaged in by the judge and the lawyer. You wrote: “As numerous observers have noted, it seems inappropriate for two ex-judges and an attorney-officers of the court-to have kno! wingly and “notoriously” trespassed on neighbors’ property with (apparently) the intent to seize it.” Thus having further incited the mob, you chastise it, piously proclaiming further in the editorial: “One needn’t excuse roguish behavior to urge zealous critics to take a deep breath . . .. [T]he critics’ extreme reaction discredits their cause.”
Clint, it is and has become the Camera’s cause. The very next day your headline has another front-page lead headline about Stevens’ reaction and next to it a discussion by lawyers of adverse possession to continue to inform and inflame. Today, Sunday, the front page advises the mob that there will be a lynching next door to the Stevens-McLean house on the empty lot that has been the subject of the lawsuit. You repeat all the facts about the case in case anyone is left in Boulder who has not heard the details you have so carefully repeated on a daily basis. You then publish the address of Edie and Dick and tell everyone they are invited to the lynching at noon today. You report that the aggrieved owner of the adjacent lot says she is buying lemonade to serve to those who show up for the lynching. Tomorrow morning I am confident your front page will have a picture of the lynching mob drinking lemonade and holding up signs attacking Dick and Edie. (Although this! is not about the mob, I would be remiss if I did not express my astonishment and dismay that a community that prides itself on its many liberal virtues would so quickly be seduced into rank thuggery by a two-bit newspaper.)
Clint, one hundred years ago in the South courageous people like you and others at the Camera incited mobs to lynching, piously proclaiming as will you, that you are simply reporting the facts and cannot help it if it inflames the public. Edie and Dick have received threatening e-mails and phone calls. The lawyer who represented them has received threatening e-mails and phone calls. And none of this would have been possible without your assistance.
Lest there be any mistake, I am not commenting on the merits of the respective positions of the parties. I do not know whether I would have followed the route chosen by Edie and Dick had I been in their shoes. I do know that because of what you have done the lives of those two people who have contributed so much to this community will never be the same. And for this they have not the court system or the lawyers to thank but you, Kevin Kaufman and the Boulder Daily Camera. You should hang your heads in shame. Chris Brauchli
Discuss this column at: http://humanraceandothersports.com/columns/395#comment
Second CD candidates should withdraw from online debate
David's taking the Kirin's side in this matter shows he is the stupidest person in town.
Here is a bully name calling liar, fails to cover or even acknowledge both sides of the story, and calls long term leaders in our community, such as Edie Stevens and State Representative Claire Levy scumbags. David Thielin is a fringe blogger, and this dangerous man should be ignored by serious candidates for office.
I urge you to write both the Jared Polis and Bill Schafroth campaigns and ask them pull out of the despicable David Thielin's online debate. His blog has no journalistic value or integrity, and any serious candidate should ignore his blog and online debate. You can contact the congressional candidates that have agreed to the online debate at:
Jared Polis Email info@polisforcongress.com
Shafroth for Congress
P.O. Box 982
Boulder, CO 80306
(303) 681-6333
David wants to moderate a Democratic party debate, yet this is what he says about our Democratic party represenative:
So this supposed liberal is urging Bob Greenlee to run as a Republican candidate? David is a libertarian right leaning person, not the liberal he says that he is, and this statement of his proves it.
Here is a bully name calling liar, fails to cover or even acknowledge both sides of the story, and calls long term leaders in our community, such as Edie Stevens and State Representative Claire Levy scumbags. David Thielin is a fringe blogger, and this dangerous man should be ignored by serious candidates for office.
I urge you to write both the Jared Polis and Bill Schafroth campaigns and ask them pull out of the despicable David Thielin's online debate. His blog has no journalistic value or integrity, and any serious candidate should ignore his blog and online debate. You can contact the congressional candidates that have agreed to the online debate at:
Jared Polis Email info@polisforcongress.com
Mail
PO BOX 4572 Boulder, CO 80306
303-381-0121
Shafroth for Congress
P.O. Box 982
Boulder, CO 80306
(303) 681-6333
David wants to moderate a Democratic party debate, yet this is what he says about our Democratic party represenative:
"This may actually be the most damaging outcome for Claire because it lets her think this is behind her while she still has not spoken to the issue. And her ending request to move on once again comes across as arrogant and unwilling to speak to the issue at hand.
Again, we will have to see how the next few weeks play out. Will Claire finally make a statement about her opinion of the land grab? Will this story stay front and center for awhile? Will a credible opponent run against Claire in the election?
But as of now I think her seat remains very much in play in the upcoming election. And if the Republicans nominate a strong candidate (hint - Bob Greenlee), then it's a real race."
So this supposed liberal is urging Bob Greenlee to run as a Republican candidate? David is a libertarian right leaning person, not the liberal he says that he is, and this statement of his proves it.
Suzy Q not elected mayor tongiht
The final glory of the liberal take back of the council, Suzy not being elected mayor, will be tonight. Stay tuned for the live blog as Suzy takes the Gordon Riggle roll of the irrelevant member of council for the remainder of her career.
Remember, before the little shit became mayor, we used to have good mayors, say Will Tour anyone. Why Tour let turncoat ruzzin take over, i have not idea, and it cost Will some support, though at the county level, city politic pettiness just does not matter.
Remember, before the little shit became mayor, we used to have good mayors, say Will Tour anyone. Why Tour let turncoat ruzzin take over, i have not idea, and it cost Will some support, though at the county level, city politic pettiness just does not matter.
Crystal Nacht Boulder Daily Camera style
Wow, the Kirlin's story of the loss of land has really created a non-story. While I am tempted to say that the real story is the protesters, who instead of say, protesting the death of 3800 American soldiers in Iraq, with no end in sight, yell profanity at a former judge about 140 square fee of land? Are you kidding!!. Do you think they are really mad about the loss of land, or do they have an agenda? Couldn't these people say protest our lame recycling program. For god's sake, fewer people showed up at the prairie dog protest.
No, the real non-story is the ineptitude of the newspapers to cover this story properly. First, the paper is only covering the Kirlin's side of the story. The paper claims that the other side is not commenting because of the litigation. Well fine . . . but they f(*&ing testified about the case in open Court, their side of the story can be listened to in the transcript. Did the reporter listen to this transcript? No story mentions what the Court concluded, that the Kirin's lied. Lying in Court equals loosing your case. This is clearly discernible from the Court ruling, yet is conveniently ignored by everybody (except the Court's). Moreover, there are over 1000 lawyers in Boulder County. There is also a nationally ranked top 20 law school. Why no reporter asked anyone at CU about this case is beyond amateur reporting.
Second, the paper is missing the total looniness of the Kirin's supporters. There is some genuine anger here, which is completely disproportionate to what is going on. The protesters, both at the property and on the Camera's blog, almost universally yell "judicial corruption", which is of course, complete nonsense. Even the Kirin's haven't leveled that charge, and any serious person reviewing the case would see that this is not an issue, they would have to produce some evidence of it. The looney bloggers allegation of a prior relationship is pure speculation. Has the paper investigated this? No. Why don't they ask the Kirin's attorney, Bill Kowalski, whether judicial corruptions is an issue. Did Kowalski make a mostion to recuse the judge? These are real stories, again, ignored by the paper.
Finally, this is yet another story that was started by the Camera, when in all likelihood, it should have been ignored. Where is Sue Deans when we need her? The story only got teeth when anonymous bloggers started writing about the story in the stories comments section. Yet, your talking about a minuscule number of people who care. There is not scientific data that bloggers comments in anyway reflect community thought. Yet the Camera though its web page let the vigilante mob take over and create a story where none existed.
That the blogs are completely irrelevant to how the people of Boulder are feeling was proven by the election. Certain bloggers like David Thielin thought they were all the hot shit, but in the end, their values where not reflected in the election results. That is because bloggers are a self identifying group that use the Camera's blog to get attention, they have nothing better to do, and the Camera lets this mob think they are some sort of majority when in fact, it is very very very few people in Boulder that have any strong feelings on this story.
The Camera need this bs with allowing commentors run away with stories. Both Thielin and the Kirlin protesters are none entities in this town. Let them start their own newspapers, but don't allow the Camera to become a forum for the uniformed and ignorant.
No, the real non-story is the ineptitude of the newspapers to cover this story properly. First, the paper is only covering the Kirlin's side of the story. The paper claims that the other side is not commenting because of the litigation. Well fine . . . but they f(*&ing testified about the case in open Court, their side of the story can be listened to in the transcript. Did the reporter listen to this transcript? No story mentions what the Court concluded, that the Kirin's lied. Lying in Court equals loosing your case. This is clearly discernible from the Court ruling, yet is conveniently ignored by everybody (except the Court's). Moreover, there are over 1000 lawyers in Boulder County. There is also a nationally ranked top 20 law school. Why no reporter asked anyone at CU about this case is beyond amateur reporting.
Second, the paper is missing the total looniness of the Kirin's supporters. There is some genuine anger here, which is completely disproportionate to what is going on. The protesters, both at the property and on the Camera's blog, almost universally yell "judicial corruption", which is of course, complete nonsense. Even the Kirin's haven't leveled that charge, and any serious person reviewing the case would see that this is not an issue, they would have to produce some evidence of it. The looney bloggers allegation of a prior relationship is pure speculation. Has the paper investigated this? No. Why don't they ask the Kirin's attorney, Bill Kowalski, whether judicial corruptions is an issue. Did Kowalski make a mostion to recuse the judge? These are real stories, again, ignored by the paper.
Finally, this is yet another story that was started by the Camera, when in all likelihood, it should have been ignored. Where is Sue Deans when we need her? The story only got teeth when anonymous bloggers started writing about the story in the stories comments section. Yet, your talking about a minuscule number of people who care. There is not scientific data that bloggers comments in anyway reflect community thought. Yet the Camera though its web page let the vigilante mob take over and create a story where none existed.
That the blogs are completely irrelevant to how the people of Boulder are feeling was proven by the election. Certain bloggers like David Thielin thought they were all the hot shit, but in the end, their values where not reflected in the election results. That is because bloggers are a self identifying group that use the Camera's blog to get attention, they have nothing better to do, and the Camera lets this mob think they are some sort of majority when in fact, it is very very very few people in Boulder that have any strong feelings on this story.
The Camera need this bs with allowing commentors run away with stories. Both Thielin and the Kirlin protesters are none entities in this town. Let them start their own newspapers, but don't allow the Camera to become a forum for the uniformed and ignorant.
Second CD online debate on FoxNews Boulder Blog
What a shock that two candidates have accepted Foxnews of Boulder David Thielin's invitation to an online debate. Why oh why does this idiot get attention from people in power? It is one thing for a community group or a newspaper to hold a debate. But why would a candidate for national office accept a debate proposal from a guy that has a blog? Thielin has no proven track record of an audience, and reading his blog, one gets the picture of a markedly out of touch curmudgeonly individual. All he does is shout his crazy ass opinions, but he doesn't make any attempt to bring balance or focus to any of the issues he discusses. Its just his opinion. He is not a journalist, and any candidate that participates in his forum has some serious problems with their scheduler.
This is just one guy blogging. One guy who is extremely libertarian and not particularly representative of Boulder. Hey let's have a debate, want to come. Next you can go to Rob Smoke's debate in his hot tub.
Most of the winning candidates for the city council election refused to participate in Thielin's online debate after learning what a jerk he is.
Thielin's blog has minimal traffic, say compared to a newspaper, or a community center. For god's sake, do the Aaron Harbor show, but Thielin's online debate?
Remember candidates, this is a man who called Boulder representative Claire Levy a jerk. He called former mayor McClean a scumbag. These are our community leaders, and you want to have him this namecalling jerk moderate your debate. This is a man who calls for a stronger Republican party in the city of Boulder so that he can have more choices of who to vote for, yet he wants to moderate a Demcratic Party primary debate. This is a blogger who called city councilman Macon Cowles a jerk.
This is the kind of even tempered person that should be conducting a debate? No its not. David is a right wing Nazi, no doubt about it, read his blog. He should have no part of Democratic Party politics.
If any sensible person from the Polis or Schafroth campaigns reads his blog, they will see that (1)
David Thielin is not a person with either deep roots in this community, and (2) that he is a cranky libertarian, (3) that he misrepresents facts, and (4) he is not fit to conduct an online debate.
So you have to question the competence of the Polis campaign for accepting this, it shows that Jarid really doesn't know what is going on, so it looks like we are going to vote for Joan.
This is just one guy blogging. One guy who is extremely libertarian and not particularly representative of Boulder. Hey let's have a debate, want to come. Next you can go to Rob Smoke's debate in his hot tub.
Most of the winning candidates for the city council election refused to participate in Thielin's online debate after learning what a jerk he is.
Thielin's blog has minimal traffic, say compared to a newspaper, or a community center. For god's sake, do the Aaron Harbor show, but Thielin's online debate?
Remember candidates, this is a man who called Boulder representative Claire Levy a jerk. He called former mayor McClean a scumbag. These are our community leaders, and you want to have him this namecalling jerk moderate your debate. This is a man who calls for a stronger Republican party in the city of Boulder so that he can have more choices of who to vote for, yet he wants to moderate a Demcratic Party primary debate. This is a blogger who called city councilman Macon Cowles a jerk.
This is the kind of even tempered person that should be conducting a debate? No its not. David is a right wing Nazi, no doubt about it, read his blog. He should have no part of Democratic Party politics.
If any sensible person from the Polis or Schafroth campaigns reads his blog, they will see that (1)
David Thielin is not a person with either deep roots in this community, and (2) that he is a cranky libertarian, (3) that he misrepresents facts, and (4) he is not fit to conduct an online debate.
So you have to question the competence of the Polis campaign for accepting this, it shows that Jarid really doesn't know what is going on, so it looks like we are going to vote for Joan.
Rich Boulder Jerks - Don and Susie Kirlin
Who cares about the Kirlin's loosing their property, tough luck bozos. Watching the Camera video of this spoiled couple shows me why they lost in Court, they are a couple of pompous dill-weeds, and clearly they were terrible witnesses on their own behalf.
And, once again, I know what is going on, unlike the newspaper. Hello, Daily Camera reporter, asks some questions. A good number of the protesters are a loosely organized group of Boulder parents that have lost custody disputes in the Boulder Courts, and they are mad. They are also insane idiots. They think all judges are corrupt. How do they know judges are corrupt, because in "their case" they either lost custody, are paying to much in alimony, or have lost parenting time. This group of protesters regularly show up at judicial review commission meetings and complain about judges. None of their complaints are ever acted on, why, because they are not actually complaining about any justified problem with the judge, they are complaining about the result in "their case." Ask Daily Camera reporter, you will find these protesters all had cases in the family law area that they lost.
So Don and Susie Kirlin, I salute you, you jerks.
And, once again, I know what is going on, unlike the newspaper. Hello, Daily Camera reporter, asks some questions. A good number of the protesters are a loosely organized group of Boulder parents that have lost custody disputes in the Boulder Courts, and they are mad. They are also insane idiots. They think all judges are corrupt. How do they know judges are corrupt, because in "their case" they either lost custody, are paying to much in alimony, or have lost parenting time. This group of protesters regularly show up at judicial review commission meetings and complain about judges. None of their complaints are ever acted on, why, because they are not actually complaining about any justified problem with the judge, they are complaining about the result in "their case." Ask Daily Camera reporter, you will find these protesters all had cases in the family law area that they lost.
So Don and Susie Kirlin, I salute you, you jerks.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Why Coleman is wrong again
Shawn offers more tidbits of his wisdom on the Camera blog. In stating that a moderate like Suzy should be mayor, he states that the moderate"
". . . constituency is feeling a little burned over the outcome of this election and I think it would be a good gesture to begin the healing process between the "both sides of the isle" to appoint Suzy as Mayor, . . . Along those lines . . . Balance is still important, and Suzy is the lone "eligible" Mayoral candidate who represents a more moderate view on a lopsided council. Therefore the permanent seat on the Council Agenda Committee (CAC) would act as a natural balance to the rest of council's leanings."
This is not how politics works. Suzy was part of a majority that ran ruff shot over Gray and McGrath's ideas. Suzy also had a lot to do with Macon and Lisa's losses. So now to reward her, they are going to make her mayor? They are going to put someone who represents the other side in the most powerful position? Not likely. It's not as like Suzy was this fair moderate trying to bring everybody together. It's not like she had any interest in bringing balance to the council, whatever that is.
Balance is bullshit. You state your positions on an issue, compromise with other's ideas, and get things done. Compromise is not the same thing as balance. It happens after the fact, when competing positions give up something in order to get something. But making Suzy mayor because, well the minority least moderate voice on council should have the most important position, makes no sense.
I would, however, be in favor of renaming this piece of crap, pedestrian unfriendly building the Ageton Center.
". . . constituency is feeling a little burned over the outcome of this election and I think it would be a good gesture to begin the healing process between the "both sides of the isle" to appoint Suzy as Mayor, . . . Along those lines . . . Balance is still important, and Suzy is the lone "eligible" Mayoral candidate who represents a more moderate view on a lopsided council. Therefore the permanent seat on the Council Agenda Committee (CAC) would act as a natural balance to the rest of council's leanings."
This is not how politics works. Suzy was part of a majority that ran ruff shot over Gray and McGrath's ideas. Suzy also had a lot to do with Macon and Lisa's losses. So now to reward her, they are going to make her mayor? They are going to put someone who represents the other side in the most powerful position? Not likely. It's not as like Suzy was this fair moderate trying to bring everybody together. It's not like she had any interest in bringing balance to the council, whatever that is.
Balance is bullshit. You state your positions on an issue, compromise with other's ideas, and get things done. Compromise is not the same thing as balance. It happens after the fact, when competing positions give up something in order to get something. But making Suzy mayor because, well the minority least moderate voice on council should have the most important position, makes no sense.
I would, however, be in favor of renaming this piece of crap, pedestrian unfriendly building the Ageton Center.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Candidate Coleman speaks out
Below is his recent posting on the Camera. See if you can spot why Mr. Coleman was not elected to council. While I am not calling him a sore looser, he certainly leaves that perception. But what I'm concerned about is that Mr. Coleman thinks he lost because of voter apathy. He lost because his ideas, whatever they were, were rejected. People do not vote for city council because you are offering to be "a competent member of city council." Shawn promised to do a good job and work for solutions. So what, everybody promised that. The candidates that won offered actual positions on issues; they offered a track record. A higher turnout would have produced exactly the same results.
"While I know a lot of folks who post on these blogs are unhappy with the direction that Boulder, and the Country are going, but now that the election is over we know that the Overwhelming majority of Boulder residents are decisively happy with the direction of Boulder evidenced by the Majority of the 34% that cared enough to vote for the status-quo and the 66% that didn't think the election was worth their time. The Tacit endorsement however is the strongest tool government can have, and therefore the biggest foe of public will. This is as true in Boulder as it is in the entire country. While you constantly hear criticism of the war, congress, and the president, it seems that this apparent "vocal majority" doesn't quite care enough to cast a ballot. Whether you like the outcome or not, it must be understood that if the input is the same, the outcome will be the same, ALWAYS. While I suspect voter apathy in Boulder is more a function of legitimate satisfaction, than disenfranchisement like in national politics (though their is disenfranchisement in Boulder and I have serious concerns about how satisfied the electorate will be if some policy changes are not made, and quickly, the revenue shortfall problem I talked about during the campaign is Boulder's number one quality of life issue, it's hard for folks to see that when the chickens haven't quite come home to roost yet, but I assure you they are on their way), voter apathy is exactly to blame for our democratic problems. And it took us a long time to get here, and it will probably take for things to get worse before they get better, and the upswing will take a long time too. The analogy I always make for the "self righteous non-voter" who is happy to complain about government is, "If you own a business, and your employees are doing a bad job, and you go out of business, who's fault is that" of course they answer the employees fault which gives you insight to the problem. The answer is of course that it's your fault because you are in charge, but getting that wrong is more evidence of the lack of personal responsibility that is so lacking in all things. And with an apathetic electorate void of personal responsibility, why should we be surprised that those who do get elected by and large are either incompetent, agenda driven, or truly think that "they know what's best" as opposed to folks who listen, care about public will, and are more interested in doing the job they we're elected to do, than do want it is that they want. Input=Outcome
"While I know a lot of folks who post on these blogs are unhappy with the direction that Boulder, and the Country are going, but now that the election is over we know that the Overwhelming majority of Boulder residents are decisively happy with the direction of Boulder evidenced by the Majority of the 34% that cared enough to vote for the status-quo and the 66% that didn't think the election was worth their time. The Tacit endorsement however is the strongest tool government can have, and therefore the biggest foe of public will. This is as true in Boulder as it is in the entire country. While you constantly hear criticism of the war, congress, and the president, it seems that this apparent "vocal majority" doesn't quite care enough to cast a ballot. Whether you like the outcome or not, it must be understood that if the input is the same, the outcome will be the same, ALWAYS. While I suspect voter apathy in Boulder is more a function of legitimate satisfaction, than disenfranchisement like in national politics (though their is disenfranchisement in Boulder and I have serious concerns about how satisfied the electorate will be if some policy changes are not made, and quickly, the revenue shortfall problem I talked about during the campaign is Boulder's number one quality of life issue, it's hard for folks to see that when the chickens haven't quite come home to roost yet, but I assure you they are on their way), voter apathy is exactly to blame for our democratic problems. And it took us a long time to get here, and it will probably take for things to get worse before they get better, and the upswing will take a long time too. The analogy I always make for the "self righteous non-voter" who is happy to complain about government is, "If you own a business, and your employees are doing a bad job, and you go out of business, who's fault is that" of course they answer the employees fault which gives you insight to the problem. The answer is of course that it's your fault because you are in charge, but getting that wrong is more evidence of the lack of personal responsibility that is so lacking in all things. And with an apathetic electorate void of personal responsibility, why should we be surprised that those who do get elected by and large are either incompetent, agenda driven, or truly think that "they know what's best" as opposed to folks who listen, care about public will, and are more interested in doing the job they we're elected to do, than do want it is that they want. Input=Outcome
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Ollie Ageton for Mayor
While Suzy desperately wants to be mayor, see Daily Camera article, she is too much of the reason the old council was ineffective. As noted in the Camera, special interests, i.e., developers, benefited from the council's failure to take initiative on any development issues, i.e. pop-ups. The old council was entirely reactive to city staff, and Suzy really cannot take credit for any proposal or initiative that council passed. In fact, did council projects get through in the last two years? For Suzy to be mayor, she must get Matt Applebaum's vote. One would think that Matt would not see any record of Suzy for him to take comfort in. Matt was part of a very active council, and served with several mayors, he is probably not going to see Suzy as fitting into the mold of someone who should be mayor.
Ageton also likes to boast that she and Ollie are the BOC elected council members. She paid back both the developers and the BOC by appointing Board members that were clearly unfit to serve. For example, she appointed actual developers with business before the planning Board to the planning Board. These appointments were made by a majority of Ageton, Tom, Ruzzin, Polk, and Stoakes. Suzy's four cronies are gone, and the new council member who see these Board appointments as ill advised are not going to see her as someone fit to represent the city as mayor.
Plus her finger pointing, ruler swatting style is just not Boulder.
Ageton also likes to boast that she and Ollie are the BOC elected council members. She paid back both the developers and the BOC by appointing Board members that were clearly unfit to serve. For example, she appointed actual developers with business before the planning Board to the planning Board. These appointments were made by a majority of Ageton, Tom, Ruzzin, Polk, and Stoakes. Suzy's four cronies are gone, and the new council member who see these Board appointments as ill advised are not going to see her as someone fit to represent the city as mayor.
Plus her finger pointing, ruler swatting style is just not Boulder.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Why I was wrong
I have no idea why I was wrong. Yes, I correctly predicted the seven winners. But the utter collapse of the business vote is perplexing. Or is it? No, it was completely predictable. The only "biz" candidate to win had broad community support. Angie E. is known not only in the biz community and the fat cows over at Boulder Tomorrow, but by numerous other important communities, such as Sierra Club, Boulder Dems, Boulder Democratic women, etc. And as she states in the candidate, she is not really a biz candidate, she just happens to own one.
Biz canidates can't win with campaigns like Erik's. Suzy, Tom, Gordon, Polk and Jack Stoakes won because are not won trick ponies, broad community support is necessary to win. But when Biz tries to shove a candidate down our throats, they get creamed. Erik and Adam, the "other" Realtor candidates had zero broad base, and thus got stoaked.
But Erik has lowered the bar for biz candidates. At least Scott Gessler and Shelia Horton finished within a couple thousand votes of the winner. But Erik got utterly creamed, which shows that a biz candidate at least needs to mount a campaign to loose by a thousand.
Adam will not ever be able to win in this town. Phony baloney poseur candidates can be spotted a mile away and they do not win city council offices. They do win seats in the state legislature (ie., Ron Tupa) so we may see him around.
So F-you Ken Hotard, move to Broomfield where you belong. Yes, you thought since you bought Polk and Ageton that you were going to build a majority on council that would cancel the 55 foot height limit, etc., but that requires making your case, rather than trying to sneak in pro-development candidates. Citizens were pissed off by the pro-development votes of the last candidate, they were pissed that Ruzzin did nothing about pop-ups.
Macon and Lisa winning so easily this time is a strong indication of where the citizens of Boulder are on issues such as development and infill. Ken, Angie, and Susan Osborne were consensus candidates, that is both sides voted for them. But certain people voted against Lisa and Macon, yet they won a four year term. Why did people vote for these two over business types like Adam. Probably because their views are reflective of where we are as a city.
Adam and Erik and Ken Toadtard would have won easily in the east county or the burbs. But those place are failed cities for most of us, so why would we vote for them? Adam and Erik views on growth are held by the vast majority of Coloradans, so it is not exactly like we don't know what their views get us. We can look to our neighboring towns and see the failure of their policies.
Biz canidates can't win with campaigns like Erik's. Suzy, Tom, Gordon, Polk and Jack Stoakes won because are not won trick ponies, broad community support is necessary to win. But when Biz tries to shove a candidate down our throats, they get creamed. Erik and Adam, the "other" Realtor candidates had zero broad base, and thus got stoaked.
But Erik has lowered the bar for biz candidates. At least Scott Gessler and Shelia Horton finished within a couple thousand votes of the winner. But Erik got utterly creamed, which shows that a biz candidate at least needs to mount a campaign to loose by a thousand.
Adam will not ever be able to win in this town. Phony baloney poseur candidates can be spotted a mile away and they do not win city council offices. They do win seats in the state legislature (ie., Ron Tupa) so we may see him around.
So F-you Ken Hotard, move to Broomfield where you belong. Yes, you thought since you bought Polk and Ageton that you were going to build a majority on council that would cancel the 55 foot height limit, etc., but that requires making your case, rather than trying to sneak in pro-development candidates. Citizens were pissed off by the pro-development votes of the last candidate, they were pissed that Ruzzin did nothing about pop-ups.
Macon and Lisa winning so easily this time is a strong indication of where the citizens of Boulder are on issues such as development and infill. Ken, Angie, and Susan Osborne were consensus candidates, that is both sides voted for them. But certain people voted against Lisa and Macon, yet they won a four year term. Why did people vote for these two over business types like Adam. Probably because their views are reflective of where we are as a city.
Adam and Erik and Ken Toadtard would have won easily in the east county or the burbs. But those place are failed cities for most of us, so why would we vote for them? Adam and Erik views on growth are held by the vast majority of Coloradans, so it is not exactly like we don't know what their views get us. We can look to our neighboring towns and see the failure of their policies.
Real story is women
Hello, no newspaper stories about women now holding the majority of council seats. This is a big story, and will likely effect the dynamics of how council functions. Let's see a story on this.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Who will be mayor.
Now that Ruzzin is out, who will be mayor. The fact that women hold a majority on counsel, for the first time in years, if ever, will play a decisive role. All of these people are Democrats. All are liberals, but Boulder issues are divided on the peculiar lines of Pro verses Slow Growth and various business policies. Ranked from pro business to progressive, you can begin to parse it out who could be mayor. It will be one of these:
Least Progressive:
Suzy Ageton -
Angie Espinoza -
Ken Wilson -
Matt Appelbaum -
Shaun McGrath -
Susan Osborne -
Crystal Gray -
Macon Cowles -
Lisa Morzel -
Most Progressive.
The most obvious candidate for mayor is Ken Wilson, as the top vote getter. But he might tilt too much towards the least progressive side of the line to attract the five votes necessary. And its hard to imagine a veterans like Suzy, McGrath, Morzel and Applebaum voting for Wilson. Is a tradition of giving the highest vote getter the mayorship? Probably not. And he doesn't seem up to speed yet. So don't look for Wilson to be our mayor, despite all those ugly blue yard signs.
Likewise, Macon tilts to far to the Most Progressive side of the scale to be elected mayor. If Macon had won a four year seat, he would have been the top candidate. Angie getting only a two year term shows she is taking political advise from the wrong people, and will not be mayor for now.
Lisa's winning a four year term, after her sound defeat by Ageton in the special election, certainly shows she deserves to be mayor. But as the most progressive member of council, she might have difficulty attracting the fifth vote.
Applebaum would also have been a favorite if he had one a four year term. But the two year term puts him out of the running, unless he can build a coalition with the least progressive members Ageton and Angie. But such a coalition would have to include Ken and/or Shaun, and this seems unlikely. He finished seventh because of his personality, and the council members are all well aware of it.
So it seems that Susan, Shaun or Crystal will be mayor. All three are solidly in the center, and would probably attract all of the most progressive council members to vote for them as mayor. Ken and Matt and Angie could also could probably be persuaded to vote for one of them as part of a deal, i.e. Deputy mayor. Finally, all have won solid four year terms, and thus have shown a large measure of support in the community.
I just can't see Suzy being promoted to either mayor or keeping her Deputy mayor position. She now holds the Richard Polk/Gordon Riggle seat on council, and from this seat, the mayor does not come. If she puts her ego in check, she will probably not seek the mayorship from council; her defeat on such a vote is clear, without turncoat Ruzzin and Liqour Stokes to back her up. If Suzy doesn't run, the next mayor will probably get all nine votes. If she decides to run, at best she will get three. Four seems remotely possible, but this would assume that Matt would vote for her, and this just does not seem possible, absent some type of vote trading deal.
Least Progressive:
Suzy Ageton -
Angie Espinoza -
Ken Wilson -
Matt Appelbaum -
Shaun McGrath -
Susan Osborne -
Crystal Gray -
Macon Cowles -
Lisa Morzel -
Most Progressive.
The most obvious candidate for mayor is Ken Wilson, as the top vote getter. But he might tilt too much towards the least progressive side of the line to attract the five votes necessary. And its hard to imagine a veterans like Suzy, McGrath, Morzel and Applebaum voting for Wilson. Is a tradition of giving the highest vote getter the mayorship? Probably not. And he doesn't seem up to speed yet. So don't look for Wilson to be our mayor, despite all those ugly blue yard signs.
Likewise, Macon tilts to far to the Most Progressive side of the scale to be elected mayor. If Macon had won a four year seat, he would have been the top candidate. Angie getting only a two year term shows she is taking political advise from the wrong people, and will not be mayor for now.
Lisa's winning a four year term, after her sound defeat by Ageton in the special election, certainly shows she deserves to be mayor. But as the most progressive member of council, she might have difficulty attracting the fifth vote.
Applebaum would also have been a favorite if he had one a four year term. But the two year term puts him out of the running, unless he can build a coalition with the least progressive members Ageton and Angie. But such a coalition would have to include Ken and/or Shaun, and this seems unlikely. He finished seventh because of his personality, and the council members are all well aware of it.
So it seems that Susan, Shaun or Crystal will be mayor. All three are solidly in the center, and would probably attract all of the most progressive council members to vote for them as mayor. Ken and Matt and Angie could also could probably be persuaded to vote for one of them as part of a deal, i.e. Deputy mayor. Finally, all have won solid four year terms, and thus have shown a large measure of support in the community.
I just can't see Suzy being promoted to either mayor or keeping her Deputy mayor position. She now holds the Richard Polk/Gordon Riggle seat on council, and from this seat, the mayor does not come. If she puts her ego in check, she will probably not seek the mayorship from council; her defeat on such a vote is clear, without turncoat Ruzzin and Liqour Stokes to back her up. If Suzy doesn't run, the next mayor will probably get all nine votes. If she decides to run, at best she will get three. Four seems remotely possible, but this would assume that Matt would vote for her, and this just does not seem possible, absent some type of vote trading deal.
Correctly predict all seven
Election results are in. Realliberalboulder, aka, ____ _______, correctly predicted the election results. This town is easy to read, just be involved. N'uff said.
Please do not read David Thielin's blog. Its crap. Its irrelevant. Stop reading it. Please. It's one mans musing, but it is not news, it is not important, it is nothing.
(Incidentally, my blog is not news, and you shouldn't be reading it either. Read the newspaper for gods sake).
This is my last post about David. I will never look at or read his blog again. David has gone the way of "Greatfull Fred" and Evan from Heaven, Boulder curiosities that just don't matter. While I don't hope the worst for him, he needs to shut the fuck up. Oh, and DailyKos needs to kick him where he deserves to be, not on that important blog.
Please do not read David Thielin's blog. Its crap. Its irrelevant. Stop reading it. Please. It's one mans musing, but it is not news, it is not important, it is nothing.
(Incidentally, my blog is not news, and you shouldn't be reading it either. Read the newspaper for gods sake).
This is my last post about David. I will never look at or read his blog again. David has gone the way of "Greatfull Fred" and Evan from Heaven, Boulder curiosities that just don't matter. While I don't hope the worst for him, he needs to shut the fuck up. Oh, and DailyKos needs to kick him where he deserves to be, not on that important blog.
Biggest out of touch blogger in Boulder
Boulder blogger, Thielin, the FoxNews of Boulder, states:
"This is by and large the Boulder enviro-power structure. Angelique and Matt not so much but the other 5 are the establishment. With no real breadth on the council we are not going to see any significant change."
Wrong!! You don't know jack. There is going to be a huge change on council, towards slow growth, no conference center. Washington School would not have gotten through this new council:
Shaun McGrath - Enviro/ Mid Growth
Suzy Ageton - BOC/Pro-Growth
Ken Wilson - Split Enviro BOC / Mid Growth
Susan Osborne Enviro / Slow Growth
Lisa Morzel Enviro / Slow Growth
Angie Espinoza BOC / Pro-Growth
Macon Cowles Enviro/ Slow Growth
Matt Appelbaum Mid Enviro / Mid Growth
Crystal Gray Enviro/ Slow Growth
Now on council there are at least five environmentalists, maybe six. Ken and Matt will sometimes vote with the environmentalists. This will have major effect on Open Space, climate change policy, green building policies.
On the growth issues, there are three Middle ground Growth members. There are four slow growth and two pro-growth. This is a major shift. The last council appointed disastrous planning board members, actual developers with conflicts of interest. Don't see this to happen.
Old counsel, was radically different. Both the business community and BOC controlled the council. BOC had five votes, now at best they have three. Pro-Growthers controlled the council. This last council is why you see crappy buildings all over Boulder.
Shaun McGrath - Enviro/ Mid Growth
Suzy Ageton - BOC/Pro Growth
Ken Wilson/Burger Tom - BOC /Mid Growth
Crystal Gray Enviro/Slow Growth
Hottie Bohhanan Enviro /Mid Growth
Andy S. Enviro/Mid Growth
Tolk-A-Polk BOC/ Pro Growth
Liquor Jack BOC/ Pro Growth
Marked Ruzzin BOC/Pro Growth
So you see David, not only do you nothing about how this city votes, you have no idea about why the last council was a disaster and the dramatic differences this council will be.
"This is by and large the Boulder enviro-power structure. Angelique and Matt not so much but the other 5 are the establishment. With no real breadth on the council we are not going to see any significant change."
Wrong!! You don't know jack. There is going to be a huge change on council, towards slow growth, no conference center. Washington School would not have gotten through this new council:
Shaun McGrath - Enviro/ Mid Growth
Suzy Ageton - BOC/Pro-Growth
Ken Wilson - Split Enviro BOC / Mid Growth
Susan Osborne Enviro / Slow Growth
Lisa Morzel Enviro / Slow Growth
Angie Espinoza BOC / Pro-Growth
Macon Cowles Enviro/ Slow Growth
Matt Appelbaum Mid Enviro / Mid Growth
Crystal Gray Enviro/ Slow Growth
Now on council there are at least five environmentalists, maybe six. Ken and Matt will sometimes vote with the environmentalists. This will have major effect on Open Space, climate change policy, green building policies.
On the growth issues, there are three Middle ground Growth members. There are four slow growth and two pro-growth. This is a major shift. The last council appointed disastrous planning board members, actual developers with conflicts of interest. Don't see this to happen.
Old counsel, was radically different. Both the business community and BOC controlled the council. BOC had five votes, now at best they have three. Pro-Growthers controlled the council. This last council is why you see crappy buildings all over Boulder.
Shaun McGrath - Enviro/ Mid Growth
Suzy Ageton - BOC/Pro Growth
Ken Wilson/Burger Tom - BOC /Mid Growth
Crystal Gray Enviro/Slow Growth
Hottie Bohhanan Enviro /Mid Growth
Andy S. Enviro/Mid Growth
Tolk-A-Polk BOC/ Pro Growth
Liquor Jack BOC/ Pro Growth
Marked Ruzzin BOC/Pro Growth
So you see David, not only do you nothing about how this city votes, you have no idea about why the last council was a disaster and the dramatic differences this council will be.
Eugene Pearson - Under 25.
Unfortunately, Eugene lost because of his age. Rich baby boomer home owner just ain't gonna vote for the younglin's. And probably less than 1500 people under 25 voted in this election. Age is a big problem for getting elected to a city council, which the voters take must be soneone that mirros them.
However, Eugene is part of this community, so you see a future leader here. Running the Boulder County AIDs project will endear him to this town and county, so he has a future in liberal politics.
While running for city council requires that the candidate mirror in age, income, and values that of the voter, the voters would love Eugene in the legislature. Hint: Run for the state house in 2010. Guaranteed win.
However, Eugene is part of this community, so you see a future leader here. Running the Boulder County AIDs project will endear him to this town and county, so he has a future in liberal politics.
While running for city council requires that the candidate mirror in age, income, and values that of the voter, the voters would love Eugene in the legislature. Hint: Run for the state house in 2010. Guaranteed win.
Good riddance
The other big winner tonight is getting a council that reflects Boulder values. This means, no more Mark Ruzzin; one of the most out of touch politicians this city has ever had. Ruzzin pushing for more and more growth, more and more recreation, all in the name of green energy values, was the biggest piece of bullshit.
What's more, Ruzzin actually believed he was helping. Ruzzin was the reason the last council was a disaster, more so that Ollie and his dog Suzy.
Like I said earlier, Polk is not the only little shit leaving council.
What's more, Ruzzin actually believed he was helping. Ruzzin was the reason the last council was a disaster, more so that Ollie and his dog Suzy.
Like I said earlier, Polk is not the only little shit leaving council.
Angie verses Lisa
Lisa getting a four year term over Angie is a big victory for slow growth. But on this one, it is early, and at least possible that Angie could still win the four year.
Angie's poor showing, given her broad support, is also a victory for Plan B. It shows that a good portion of Boulder's smart liberal community is not going to put up with the "mom knows best" style of politician. Warning to you Ageton, this election shows that Boulder is not looking for council members to scold us.
Angie's poor showing, given her broad support, is also a victory for Plan B. It shows that a good portion of Boulder's smart liberal community is not going to put up with the "mom knows best" style of politician. Warning to you Ageton, this election shows that Boulder is not looking for council members to scold us.
My predictions, dead on, at 7:30PM
I correctly predicted all seven winners. Hmm, maybe I know more about this city than, oh, David Thielin? Why, because I participate in it rather than sit in front of my computer blogging about something I know nothing about. I was off on finishing order, but not by much. My predictions verses actual vote totals.
1. Ken Wilson - Predicted: 10, 527 Actual: 7900 Predicted: Sixth place Actual: First place.
2. Crystal Gray- Predicted: 14,238 Actual: 7437 Predicted: First place Actual: Second
3. Susan Osborne - Predicted:13, 928 Actual: 7236 Predicted: Second place. Actual: Third
4. Lisa Morzel Predicted: 10,766 Actual: 6900 Predicted: Fifth Place Actual: Fourth Place
5. Angie Espinoza - Predicted: 11,355 Actual 6588 Predicted Third Place. Actual: Fifth Place
6. Macon Cowles - Predicted : 11, 287 Actual: 6508 Predicted: Fourth Place. Actual: Sixth Place
7. Matt A. Predicted Predicted: 10,456 Actual: 5450 Predicted: Seventh Place. Actual Seventh
Funny: Adam and Erik Rutherford are tied: at 2549! Hillarious! Tied for 11th!! This is too good. Even better, they are behind Shawn Coleman. Hopefully Eric is moving to Highlands Ranch, where he will be elected mayor.
1. Ken Wilson - Predicted: 10, 527 Actual: 7900 Predicted: Sixth place Actual: First place.
2. Crystal Gray- Predicted: 14,238 Actual: 7437 Predicted: First place Actual: Second
3. Susan Osborne - Predicted:13, 928 Actual: 7236 Predicted: Second place. Actual: Third
4. Lisa Morzel Predicted: 10,766 Actual: 6900 Predicted: Fifth Place Actual: Fourth Place
5. Angie Espinoza - Predicted: 11,355 Actual 6588 Predicted Third Place. Actual: Fifth Place
6. Macon Cowles - Predicted : 11, 287 Actual: 6508 Predicted: Fourth Place. Actual: Sixth Place
7. Matt A. Predicted Predicted: 10,456 Actual: 5450 Predicted: Seventh Place. Actual Seventh
Funny: Adam and Erik Rutherford are tied: at 2549! Hillarious! Tied for 11th!! This is too good. Even better, they are behind Shawn Coleman. Hopefully Eric is moving to Highlands Ranch, where he will be elected mayor.
What David Thielin says about Coleman
On David's blog, he stated:
"Shawn Coleman - The official story is if you sit on a board or two, show that you are thoughtful, work hard, and are sufficiently liberal, then you will get elected by the system. Shawn has done all that. If he finishes within 2% of 4th place then the official story is legit. If he finished 5 - 10% below 4th then the official story is a bunch of B.S. and the real story is you have to be "one of us" to get elected."
One of what you dick. One of us means one of the community. Those elected have extremely deep roots in the community. Your analysis, like your predictions of Shawn's "easy" win is all wrong. Shawn lost because he is out of touch. Not because he is dumb. Not because he is not brilliant. But because he really does not know about the fabric of Boulder. Serving on a board, for one or two years, without really being part of the community is not enough. He is not a nationally recognized environmental lawyer. He is not someone who has fought neighborhood battles for years. He does not have a record on any issues. Did he doorbell any precincts. In short, he is not yet part of the political community in this town. Has he lived in Boulder long enough to influence any policy. No.
David, analysis of how politics works in a small town is simply out of touch with reality, but is based on a small blogger view of the world. If the bloggers knew what was going on, Gov. Dean would be president, and Shawn Coleman would be on council.
"Shawn Coleman - The official story is if you sit on a board or two, show that you are thoughtful, work hard, and are sufficiently liberal, then you will get elected by the system. Shawn has done all that. If he finishes within 2% of 4th place then the official story is legit. If he finished 5 - 10% below 4th then the official story is a bunch of B.S. and the real story is you have to be "one of us" to get elected."
One of what you dick. One of us means one of the community. Those elected have extremely deep roots in the community. Your analysis, like your predictions of Shawn's "easy" win is all wrong. Shawn lost because he is out of touch. Not because he is dumb. Not because he is not brilliant. But because he really does not know about the fabric of Boulder. Serving on a board, for one or two years, without really being part of the community is not enough. He is not a nationally recognized environmental lawyer. He is not someone who has fought neighborhood battles for years. He does not have a record on any issues. Did he doorbell any precincts. In short, he is not yet part of the political community in this town. Has he lived in Boulder long enough to influence any policy. No.
David, analysis of how politics works in a small town is simply out of touch with reality, but is based on a small blogger view of the world. If the bloggers knew what was going on, Gov. Dean would be president, and Shawn Coleman would be on council.
I was right, David was wrong. As expected.
Wow, I was so on. David was so wrong. Shows what you know about local politics. After a night of gloating, i will explain in great detail why David Thielin's blog should be read by nobody.
Why Adam lost
Adam Massey lost for one reason alone (other than he did not get enough votes).
He is not genuine. He is a complete fake, more interested in power and position than either helping this city or pushing genuine policy interests. If he had really believed in any of this positions, he would have won. But people can spot a phony a mile a way.
As an aside, who the F@#* votes for balance. Adam said "vote for me, I bring balance." The people that did vote for Adam didn't vote for him to bring balance to council, they voted because of his BOC stance or pro-growth stance (not exactly balanced positions). So at least the people that voted for this phony voted for him out of a policy they were in favor of.
Adam, however, is extremely qualified to be turned down by council, yet again, for a Board position.
He is not genuine. He is a complete fake, more interested in power and position than either helping this city or pushing genuine policy interests. If he had really believed in any of this positions, he would have won. But people can spot a phony a mile a way.
As an aside, who the F@#* votes for balance. Adam said "vote for me, I bring balance." The people that did vote for Adam didn't vote for him to bring balance to council, they voted because of his BOC stance or pro-growth stance (not exactly balanced positions). So at least the people that voted for this phony voted for him out of a policy they were in favor of.
Adam, however, is extremely qualified to be turned down by council, yet again, for a Board position.
Coleman Wins!!
Shocking, but true. Shawn wins a four year seat, proving that I am a complete idiot. Competence and hard work counts for something.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Big Ego
Candidates to vote against because they offer us their special leadership skills, as opposed to positions on issues. In other words, they think they are great and that we need them, because we are stupid and they know better. Good reason to kick them to curb.
Shawn Coleman
Alan O'Hashi
Susan Peterson
Rob Smoke (small ego, but crazy)
Matt Applebutt
Messey Adam
Nabil (great cook though, ego profession)
Shawn Coleman
Alan O'Hashi
Susan Peterson
Rob Smoke (small ego, but crazy)
Matt Applebutt
Messey Adam
Nabil (great cook though, ego profession)
Friday, November 2, 2007
Real bigline revised
The election is over. The winners have been determined. Though some of you may continue to vote, you will vote in the same proportions as those who have already voted. Big change is switch between Susan and Crystal, Ken and Lisa and Adam and Erik. All indications are that everybody is voting for Gray. Revised Coleman's numbers way down. Ken is getting pounded by the business community for his hill activities, this will cost him a four year seat.
Expect an extremely low turnout. 37 to 42 percent of registered voters.
Though the votes have not been counted, they will read:
1. Crystal Gray- 14,238
2. Susan Osborne - 13, 928
3. Angie Espinoza - 11, 355
4. Macon Cowles - 11, 287
5. Lisa Morzel - 10,766
6. Ken Wilson - 10, 527
7. Matt A. - 10,456
8. Eric Rurtherford- 8,688
9. Adam Massey - 8,200
10. Eugene Pearson 7,245
11. Shawn Coleman - 4,892
12. Larry Quilling - 4,678
13. Alan O'Hashi - 3, 764
14. Philip Hernandez - 2,876
15. Rob Smoke - 38.925
16. Pinback - 18 - http://www.myspace.com/pinback
Expect an extremely low turnout. 37 to 42 percent of registered voters.
Though the votes have not been counted, they will read:
1. Crystal Gray- 14,238
2. Susan Osborne - 13, 928
3. Angie Espinoza - 11, 355
4. Macon Cowles - 11, 287
5. Lisa Morzel - 10,766
6. Ken Wilson - 10, 527
7. Matt A. - 10,456
8. Eric Rurtherford- 8,688
9. Adam Massey - 8,200
10. Eugene Pearson 7,245
11. Shawn Coleman - 4,892
12. Larry Quilling - 4,678
13. Alan O'Hashi - 3, 764
14. Philip Hernandez - 2,876
15. Rob Smoke - 38.925
16. Pinback - 18 - http://www.myspace.com/pinback
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Nail in Adam's Coffin
David Thielin gets it right, realtor's endorsement is the nail in Adam's coffin. The big developer support of Angie Espinoza will probably not hurt her, given her deep Democratic party roots and human service support. She is also a small businesswoman, so her ties will not hurt her with most voters.
Rutherford's increase in name recognition, because of big developer support, will not help. Being pegged as THE developer candidate is not going to help, especially after the Washington School vote by council. With no broad support, he gets only the development and conservative vote, which is worth less than the 10,000 votes required.
Sorry folks, Coleman is going nowhere. Despite the paper endorsements, he simply is not well known enough and lacks a campaign. People do not vote for competence, they vote for people who support their positions. Colman is running as the competent candidate, which isn't enough. Further, blogging and going to candidate forums is not a campaign. How many people are volunteering for Coleman. Five, two, zero? I bet its one of these numbers. How many people are volunteering for Sierra Club and Plan B. 50, 100, 250? How many flyers did these groups send out. 40,000? Despite the supposed buzz around Coleman, he is going to be defeated soundly because (1) no campaign or money (2) he is not in touch with Boulder voters on the issues they care about, ie, the environment, growth and city services. Remember, the vast majority of voters do not know the candidates, and briefly reviewing the candidates, there is nothing about Coleman that stands out. People do not sit in the living rooms and decide "I'm going to vote for Coleman because he says he is going to do a good job"; instead they say "I'm going to vote for Lisa Morzel because she's against density development like Washington School and the Transit Village."
Rutherford's increase in name recognition, because of big developer support, will not help. Being pegged as THE developer candidate is not going to help, especially after the Washington School vote by council. With no broad support, he gets only the development and conservative vote, which is worth less than the 10,000 votes required.
Sorry folks, Coleman is going nowhere. Despite the paper endorsements, he simply is not well known enough and lacks a campaign. People do not vote for competence, they vote for people who support their positions. Colman is running as the competent candidate, which isn't enough. Further, blogging and going to candidate forums is not a campaign. How many people are volunteering for Coleman. Five, two, zero? I bet its one of these numbers. How many people are volunteering for Sierra Club and Plan B. 50, 100, 250? How many flyers did these groups send out. 40,000? Despite the supposed buzz around Coleman, he is going to be defeated soundly because (1) no campaign or money (2) he is not in touch with Boulder voters on the issues they care about, ie, the environment, growth and city services. Remember, the vast majority of voters do not know the candidates, and briefly reviewing the candidates, there is nothing about Coleman that stands out. People do not sit in the living rooms and decide "I'm going to vote for Coleman because he says he is going to do a good job"; instead they say "I'm going to vote for Lisa Morzel because she's against density development like Washington School and the Transit Village."
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Endorsements of others
To win a council seat, you need a strong base in the community and support from many different types of Bouderites. If you run for counsel, and focus on one group, you loose. My prediction is that this election will show the following about endorsements:
1. Daily Camera and Colorado Daily endorsements: The election will show that this endorsement is worth 2,000 to 3,000 votes. Coleman's lack of community base and campaign, but getting these endorsements, isn't enough to get him to the 10,000 mark. Shawn simply does not know enough people to win a seat. Cowles lack of the endorsement costs him, but he was already at 9,000 votes last time, so the hard work he has done means he will easily get the extra 1,000 votes he needs to win a seat, despite no paper. For Crystal, Susan, Ken and Angie, the paper endorsement puts them into the solid upper four spots, away from the bottom feeders that will get two-year terms.
2. BOC and FI-DOS. Polk won with BOC and the paper endorsement, getting 2,000 votes he lacked the last time. And he had a solid base in the community, with lots of connections, to different wheelers and "dealers". Massey is the new Polk in this election (not only because he smokes") but because he has gone after the recreation endorsement and he got 1/2 the paper endorsement. But does he have a base in the community? Or a girlfriend? These endorsements are worth a couple thousand votes, but there doesn't seem to be anything else. Without the years of building connections, serving on downtowns boards, etc., these endorsements will prove to not be enough. The candidates that will greatly benefit from these endorsements again is Susan, big Ken Wilson and Angie, who have such broad support, they will get twice the votes.
Some of the other candidates that were not endorsed by these groups will still do well because they have inroads into these groups membership. Macon's dog bites everybody, so he will get a good 1/2 of the FI-DOS members anyway.
3. PLAN Boulder, Sierra Bub verses human services- A candidate can be opposed by the slow growth movement and still win, but not if they are only a businessperson. Riggle, Burger Tom all had big inroads into the Human Services community to offset any of those small building people. Rutherford has no crossover vote from the environmental or Human Service community, his appeal is only pro development and pro law enforcement. Massey's crossover to the slow growth and Sierra Bub voters seems limited. Yes he bike commutes, but that's easy if your not working (and high).
4. Mark Ruzzin - Polk isn't the only little shit leaving council. Our know-it-all mayor has endorsed a number of candidates. Since 40% of the voters have no idea who the mayor is, it probably has not significantly helped either Ken Wilson or Adam Massey. Ken was already going to win, and so was Adam, if he had managed to "commute" to work.
1. Daily Camera and Colorado Daily endorsements: The election will show that this endorsement is worth 2,000 to 3,000 votes. Coleman's lack of community base and campaign, but getting these endorsements, isn't enough to get him to the 10,000 mark. Shawn simply does not know enough people to win a seat. Cowles lack of the endorsement costs him, but he was already at 9,000 votes last time, so the hard work he has done means he will easily get the extra 1,000 votes he needs to win a seat, despite no paper. For Crystal, Susan, Ken and Angie, the paper endorsement puts them into the solid upper four spots, away from the bottom feeders that will get two-year terms.
2. BOC and FI-DOS. Polk won with BOC and the paper endorsement, getting 2,000 votes he lacked the last time. And he had a solid base in the community, with lots of connections, to different wheelers and "dealers". Massey is the new Polk in this election (not only because he smokes") but because he has gone after the recreation endorsement and he got 1/2 the paper endorsement. But does he have a base in the community? Or a girlfriend? These endorsements are worth a couple thousand votes, but there doesn't seem to be anything else. Without the years of building connections, serving on downtowns boards, etc., these endorsements will prove to not be enough. The candidates that will greatly benefit from these endorsements again is Susan, big Ken Wilson and Angie, who have such broad support, they will get twice the votes.
Some of the other candidates that were not endorsed by these groups will still do well because they have inroads into these groups membership. Macon's dog bites everybody, so he will get a good 1/2 of the FI-DOS members anyway.
3. PLAN Boulder, Sierra Bub verses human services- A candidate can be opposed by the slow growth movement and still win, but not if they are only a businessperson. Riggle, Burger Tom all had big inroads into the Human Services community to offset any of those small building people. Rutherford has no crossover vote from the environmental or Human Service community, his appeal is only pro development and pro law enforcement. Massey's crossover to the slow growth and Sierra Bub voters seems limited. Yes he bike commutes, but that's easy if your not working (and high).
4. Mark Ruzzin - Polk isn't the only little shit leaving council. Our know-it-all mayor has endorsed a number of candidates. Since 40% of the voters have no idea who the mayor is, it probably has not significantly helped either Ken Wilson or Adam Massey. Ken was already going to win, and so was Adam, if he had managed to "commute" to work.
The Real Bigline - the votes are in
The election is over. The winners have been determined. Though some of you may continue to vote, you will vote in the same proportions as those who have already voted. Though the votes have not been counted, they will read:
1. Susan Osborne - 15,233
2. Crystal Gray - 13, 927
3. Angie Espinoza - 13, 255
4. Macon Cowles - 11, 287
5. Ken Wilson - 11, 101
6. Lisa Morzel - 10,766
7. Matt A. - 10,456
8. Adam Massey - 9,027
9. Erick Rutherfork - 8,487
10. Eugene Pearson 7,245
11. Shawn Coleman - 6,897
12. Larry Quilling - 4,678
13. Alan O'Hashi - 3, 764
14. Philip Hernandez - 2,876
15. Rob Smoke - 37
1. Susan Osborne - 15,233
2. Crystal Gray - 13, 927
3. Angie Espinoza - 13, 255
4. Macon Cowles - 11, 287
5. Ken Wilson - 11, 101
6. Lisa Morzel - 10,766
7. Matt A. - 10,456
8. Adam Massey - 9,027
9. Erick Rutherfork - 8,487
10. Eugene Pearson 7,245
11. Shawn Coleman - 6,897
12. Larry Quilling - 4,678
13. Alan O'Hashi - 3, 764
14. Philip Hernandez - 2,876
15. Rob Smoke - 37
Monday, October 22, 2007
Espinoza bougth and paid for
Recent letter to editor says it all:
Recognizing that large campaign contributions are used to buy political access and influence government actions, in 1999, Boulder residents passed a campaign finance reform law to ensure that large contributions will not cause corruption or the appearance of corruption in Boulder elections.
The law clearly states:
No candidate for city council shall solicit or accept any contribution, including any "in-kind" contribution, that will cause the total contributions from any person to exceed one hundred dollars per election.
But influential real estate developers are giving their pro-development candidates, like Angelique Espinoza, many times more than the $100 limit. Developer Lou DellaCava, for example, in addition to cutting Espinoza a personal check for $100 also gave her a $100 check from his DellaCava Hartronft Development Company, and another $100 check from the DellaCava Day Development Company, and another $100 check from the DellaCava Fox Creek Associates, and another $100 check from 2144 North Main LLC. Other Boulder developers and their attorneys such as Michael Berman and Bruce Dierking also used this scheme to provide Espinoza's campaign with multiple $100 checks.
Typically such contributions are presented in a single bundle to strengthen their intended effect. And true to form, public records show that all of DellaCava's contributions to Espinoza were received on a single day.
It's a bad sign when a candidate for city council chooses to circumvent our campaign finance laws. Angelique Espinoza could have returned all contributions in excess of $100, but she did not. And not only did her campaign accept the multiple $100 contributions, but those large contributions were used to apply, dollar for dollar, for matching funds from Boulder taxpayers. DellaCava's and Berman's $500 contributions, for example, were each matched with $500 of public funds, accounting for a large percentage of Espinoza's total.
Interestingly, Espinoza's website lists over 100 supporters, but none of the pro-growth developers and real estate speculators who provided her largest financial contributions are listed. A simple oversight? Or intentional deception? You tell me.
Ben Binder
Boulder
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Rutherford developer money - bought & paid for
There is little doubt who this candidate is representing, developers. His campaign money is coming from the usual developer suspects and lots of out of town money, from people hoping to make cash off of Boulder by building some crap, perhaps even a convention center
Boulder developers and landlords that contribute include
Tebo,
Boulder Property Management,
Gunpark Property Management
Two seperate Della Cava development companies
and 14 more developers, their spouses, and their companies.
Also, lots of money from out of town, including contributors from Cherry Hills, Lafeyette, Longmont, Denver, Aurora. What are all these out of town givers contributing to Rutherford for: How about to eliminate the 55 foot height limit, build 10,000 units at the transit village, build chaing stores, develop CU South. In short, make Boulder more like Superior or Highlands Ranch.
Read his latest list of out of town developer money at: http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/files/Elections/2007/rutherford_ce100907.pdf
And to you and your developer money:
http://www.geocities.com/ron8318/cashonly.htm
Boulder developers and landlords that contribute include
Tebo,
Boulder Property Management,
Gunpark Property Management
Two seperate Della Cava development companies
and 14 more developers, their spouses, and their companies.
Also, lots of money from out of town, including contributors from Cherry Hills, Lafeyette, Longmont, Denver, Aurora. What are all these out of town givers contributing to Rutherford for: How about to eliminate the 55 foot height limit, build 10,000 units at the transit village, build chaing stores, develop CU South. In short, make Boulder more like Superior or Highlands Ranch.
Read his latest list of out of town developer money at: http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/files/Elections/2007/rutherford_ce100907.pdf
And to you and your developer money:
http://www.geocities.com/ron8318/cashonly.htm
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Why "Libertarian and Loving It" analysis is incorrect
Because he makes his predictions without reviewing history, he knows nothing about how Boulder got to be the way it is.
Below are prior election results. To loose, 4,000 people who voted for Crystal last time are going to have to vote against her this time and vote for someone else, someone that does not happen to incumbents where there is no significant issue against such incumbent. Crystal is loved, so she will get her votes easily.
The past election results are show why Shawn has no chance, 7,000 more people are going to have to vote for him that chose not to last time. While he may have convinced some, most realize that his youth and conservative values are not the right fit for Boulder. Do you want to trust someone who has never owned a house with setting your property taxes? Most will answer no. Youth like Shawn's is a better fit for the State House, not the thrash em up issues for a city council. Most will see the Camera endorsement as the papers phony attempt at balance. At least Shawn is smart, and it speaks volumes that the paper couldn't come to terms and endorse Massey.
Past results show why Macon has a chance, look how Polk barely lost, then got it the second time.
Past results also show why Rutherford is another Scott Gessler. Gessler had a stronger campaign, but people were not going to vote for a Republican. Though Rutherford does not appear as conservative, he is still the developer guy, but his campaign is nowhere as strong as Gessler, who plastered the city with yard signs, robo calls and mailings. Maybe if I get a couple of mailings and a robo call I'll change my opinion, but Gessler did these things and it didn't help,. Maybe there is some massive demographic change since 2003, but this is a university town with massive federal lab presence, Rutherford, Buzz B and Theilin "liberals" really are not a significant part of this town, at least not to the point of consistently generating 10k votes needed to win.
The pro growthers that have won in the past, Ageton, Polk and Stokes, all had significant environmental support, and are people that were fixtures in the community for decades. Sierra Club endorsed Stokes. The Sierra Club endorsed Gordon Riggle. They all had the endorsements of former council members and mayors.
Rutherford, Massey, Coleman are outsiders at this point, they just are not the type of broad based people that are well known. Without the type of community support from the establishment, you don't get them to the 10,000 vote mark. Gessler and Shelia Horton are the type of well established biz and right leaning candidates that just cannot get to the 10,000 vote mark that biz candidates like Riggle could get to.
The biz candidates cannot win without crossover, and this has been consistent for at least 1995. Even burger Tom had difficulty winning the first time. The Biz candidate with crossover is Angie. The BOC endorsement may give Massey the appearance of crossover. But the Camera endorsement doesn't get Coleman the crossover that Ageton, Riggle, Stokes, Burger all had.
This is an pro careful planning, slow growth town. Angie and Suzy winning by a big margin does not change that. Further, these two women are significant players in the Democratic women's arena and are true liberals when one gets away from the planning issue and into the human services/national issues arena. Coleman and Rutherford do not have that. The rejection of the pro-growth agenda will be seen in the poor showing that Rutherford and perhaps Coleman will have in this election.
Below are prior election results. To loose, 4,000 people who voted for Crystal last time are going to have to vote against her this time and vote for someone else, someone that does not happen to incumbents where there is no significant issue against such incumbent. Crystal is loved, so she will get her votes easily.
The past election results are show why Shawn has no chance, 7,000 more people are going to have to vote for him that chose not to last time. While he may have convinced some, most realize that his youth and conservative values are not the right fit for Boulder. Do you want to trust someone who has never owned a house with setting your property taxes? Most will answer no. Youth like Shawn's is a better fit for the State House, not the thrash em up issues for a city council. Most will see the Camera endorsement as the papers phony attempt at balance. At least Shawn is smart, and it speaks volumes that the paper couldn't come to terms and endorse Massey.
Past results show why Macon has a chance, look how Polk barely lost, then got it the second time.
Past results also show why Rutherford is another Scott Gessler. Gessler had a stronger campaign, but people were not going to vote for a Republican. Though Rutherford does not appear as conservative, he is still the developer guy, but his campaign is nowhere as strong as Gessler, who plastered the city with yard signs, robo calls and mailings. Maybe if I get a couple of mailings and a robo call I'll change my opinion, but Gessler did these things and it didn't help,. Maybe there is some massive demographic change since 2003, but this is a university town with massive federal lab presence, Rutherford, Buzz B and Theilin "liberals" really are not a significant part of this town, at least not to the point of consistently generating 10k votes needed to win.
The pro growthers that have won in the past, Ageton, Polk and Stokes, all had significant environmental support, and are people that were fixtures in the community for decades. Sierra Club endorsed Stokes. The Sierra Club endorsed Gordon Riggle. They all had the endorsements of former council members and mayors.
Rutherford, Massey, Coleman are outsiders at this point, they just are not the type of broad based people that are well known. Without the type of community support from the establishment, you don't get them to the 10,000 vote mark. Gessler and Shelia Horton are the type of well established biz and right leaning candidates that just cannot get to the 10,000 vote mark that biz candidates like Riggle could get to.
The biz candidates cannot win without crossover, and this has been consistent for at least 1995. Even burger Tom had difficulty winning the first time. The Biz candidate with crossover is Angie. The BOC endorsement may give Massey the appearance of crossover. But the Camera endorsement doesn't get Coleman the crossover that Ageton, Riggle, Stokes, Burger all had.
This is an pro careful planning, slow growth town. Angie and Suzy winning by a big margin does not change that. Further, these two women are significant players in the Democratic women's arena and are true liberals when one gets away from the planning issue and into the human services/national issues arena. Coleman and Rutherford do not have that. The rejection of the pro-growth agenda will be seen in the poor showing that Rutherford and perhaps Coleman will have in this election.
2003 results
| Mark Ruzzin | 13681 | 11.64% | |
| Crystal Gray | 13657 | 11.62% | |
| Robin Bohannan | 13122 | 11.16% | |
| Jack Stoakes | 12564 | 10.69% | |
| Andy Schultheiss | 10877 | 9.25% | |
| Shaun McGrath | 10569 | 8.99% | |
| Richard Polk | 8822 | 7.51% | |
| Scott Gessler | 8014 | 6.82% | |
| Jim Rettew | 7931 | 6.75% | |
| Jeep Campbell | 6001 | 5.11% | |
| Nabil Karkamaz | 4647 | 3.95% | |
| Chris Maurer | 3794 | 3.23% | |
| Lynn Segal | 1821 | 1.55% | |
| Carl "Go" Grodnik | 1811 | 1.54% | |
| Write-in Votes | 230 | 0.20% |
2005 results
| 1. Suzy Ageton | 14091 | 15.9% |
| 10. Andy Schultheiss | 13111 | 14.8% |
| 4. Tom Eldridge | 12915 | 14.5% |
| 7. Shaun McGrath | 12874 | 14.5% |
| 9. Richard Polk | 10484 | 11.8% |
| 3. Macon Cowles | 9462 | 10.7% |
| 8. Eugene Pearson | 6979 | 7.9% |
| 2. Shawn Coleman | 3832 | 4.3% |
| 5. Nabil Karkamaz | 3447 | 3.9% |
| 6. John Klein | 1572 | 1.8% |
The Real Bigline - Boulder City Council
Some Ballots have hit the voters' mailboxes yesterday. Here are the true odds of the candidates winning. Expect a very low turnout. It will take 10,000 to 11,000 votes to win a seat.
Crystal Gray (2-1) : Incumbent, all three newspapers, PB endorsement, Sierra Club endorsement. An incumbent at the city council level does not have to raise tons of money to do very well. She is personally known by several thousand voters, will benefit from the Sierra Club mailing, will benefit from the Plan B/Sierra Club literature drop, her name in all of the voter guides as endorsed, Democratic women power behind her. Zero chance she will not get a four year seat. David Thielin's blog has her doing poorly, but that is just silly. She printed her yard signs and literature, has ad buys in the paper; that's all you need. The only votes she will not get are those people actually voting against her. For Angie and Susan, even Shawn and Macon, when they first ran, as they are running now, voters have to actually be educated about who they are and the campaign needs to boost name recognition. This doesn't apply to Crystal, you know what your going to get with her, popular Boulder views and a dog. Crystal will get 15,000 to 17,000 votes.
TWO YEAR SEATS Remaining candidates are likely to compete for a two year seat.
Lisa Morzel (6-1): Lisa probably will beat Matt, simply because negatives are not as high as Matt's. Will the conservatives rally around Coleman, Massey and Rutherford. Doubtful, its a bit to late for these three to get a campaign going. If they do, we will have a very different city
ie, 55 foot building in all of downtown, stupid convention center, etc. Morzel has the basic liberal college town values that people here like. Her campaign is massive, and that gets you 9,000 - 11,000 votes.
Macon Cowles (28-1) : "Running as exactly what PLAN Boulder wants and that could be enough (which is a sorry statement about how people can vote here)." This is what David says, and I say, move to Highlands Ranch or Broomfield. People with the values of Thielin live in those places, which suck, and not here. Macon's strong campaign could get him more votes than last time, and the field is much weaker than when he last ran. He didn't get the Camera endorsement last time, and he needed it this time for a sure win, so he is on the edge. BOC and FI-DOS people will vote against him, again, no mountain bike and stinky dogs. Still, he should be able to get 1,000 more votes than last time. Macon will get 7,000 to 9,000 votes. But is that enough?
Crystal Gray (2-1) : Incumbent, all three newspapers, PB endorsement, Sierra Club endorsement. An incumbent at the city council level does not have to raise tons of money to do very well. She is personally known by several thousand voters, will benefit from the Sierra Club mailing, will benefit from the Plan B/Sierra Club literature drop, her name in all of the voter guides as endorsed, Democratic women power behind her. Zero chance she will not get a four year seat. David Thielin's blog has her doing poorly, but that is just silly. She printed her yard signs and literature, has ad buys in the paper; that's all you need. The only votes she will not get are those people actually voting against her. For Angie and Susan, even Shawn and Macon, when they first ran, as they are running now, voters have to actually be educated about who they are and the campaign needs to boost name recognition. This doesn't apply to Crystal, you know what your going to get with her, popular Boulder views and a dog. Crystal will get 15,000 to 17,000 votes. Angelique Espinoza (3-1) : Angelique got a Daily Camera, Boulder Weekly & Sierra Club. endorsement. She won the Givem Hell Harry award last year from the Democrats, and though she is a pro-growther, this will be offset by the Sierra Club and Democratic women's vote. Angelique will be the development, ethnic, star of counsel, which will annoy Suzy to no end. Angie will basically kill Suzy's star on the council. Angie also benefits from the massive Sierra Club literature drop and membership mailing. However, her arrogant attitude will cost her the top finish. Angie will get 15,000 votes.
Ken Wilson (4-1) Will likely win a four year term. However, possibility of a slip to either Appleseed or Morzel, who are better known. No environmental enemies yet and squishy on the VMP means he could finish ahead of Crystal. But, university hill business people and landlords hate him, which will cost him 300-500 votes, putting him in 4th. Ken will get 14,000 votes.
TWO YEAR SEATS Remaining candidates are likely to compete for a two year seat.
Lisa Morzel (6-1): Lisa probably will beat Matt, simply because negatives are not as high as Matt's. Will the conservatives rally around Coleman, Massey and Rutherford. Doubtful, its a bit to late for these three to get a campaign going. If they do, we will have a very different city
ie, 55 foot building in all of downtown, stupid convention center, etc. Morzel has the basic liberal college town values that people here like. Her campaign is massive, and that gets you 9,000 - 11,000 votes.
Macon Cowles (28-1) : "Running as exactly what PLAN Boulder wants and that could be enough (which is a sorry statement about how people can vote here)." This is what David says, and I say, move to Highlands Ranch or Broomfield. People with the values of Thielin live in those places, which suck, and not here. Macon's strong campaign could get him more votes than last time, and the field is much weaker than when he last ran. He didn't get the Camera endorsement last time, and he needed it this time for a sure win, so he is on the edge. BOC and FI-DOS people will vote against him, again, no mountain bike and stinky dogs. Still, he should be able to get 1,000 more votes than last time. Macon will get 7,000 to 9,000 votes. But is that enough?
Matthew Applebaum (6-1) : Matt clearly has support and high positives (as well as high negatives). Matt knows he is the most qualified (and he is in some ways) and that both helps & hurts him some. He was a long shot to get a PLAN Boulder & BOC endorsement because he is a pro-growther to some extend, wanting to restock our city with new high density buildings, and he is not a nutjob, so he is not in line with BOC. Matt will get a literature drop from Sierra Club, big advantage to him, which may get him into the top 7. Matt will be in the 9,000 to 10,500 vote range. If the Rockies do well in the series, people may vote against Matt, because the feel good attitude is just not what Appleseed brings to the table.
Eugene Pearson (9-1) : PLAN Boulder and support among the human services community puts him up there. This is better than the BOC endorsement that Adam got, because it comes with a lit drop. But still young, in a city council election, young costs you, because you have not been around long enough for your neighbors to know you. Eugene will get 7,000 to 10,000 votes.
Adam Massey (9-1) : Adam is basically doing nothing. B.O.C. endorsement alone will not do the job because such endorsement only comes with an email, not a literature drop. Remember, Polk barely beat Macon, and he spent tons of money, got the Camera endorsement, and worked hard. And Polk only won by 1,000 votes. Adam f-ed up the Boulder Show for heaven's sake. Adam will get 8,000 to 9,000 votes, so right on the edge of winning.
Susan Peterson (41-1) : Got the PLAN Boulder endorsement. But she missed one forum and has missed a number of the Camera blogs. She may be hoping to coast in on that endorsement and that is a questionable approach. No newspaper endorsements - that probably ends it for Susan. Plan B literature drop, even with her poor piece, will get her 1,500 to 3,500 votes. Lisa and Macon and Matt voters will probably not vote for her in order to target their vote.
Kathryn Kramer (49-1) :Tom Riley (49-1) :Philip Bradley (60-1) :Seth Brigham (75-1) :Nabil Karkamaz (95-1) : Andrew Harrison (100-1) . None of these candidates will get more than the various Colorado Rockies write ins the clerk is going to have to deal with.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Shawn Coleman, not going to happen
Thielin over at his blog has Shawn listed as a slam dunk for election. Not going to happen. Sean will finish in the 9th to 11th range.
1) Shawn has no money, therefore no campaign. Many people will not get their information from the internet, or by reading candidates pieces in the paper, but from their campaigns. This means literature, newspaper adds, and neighborhood buzz. If you have money and a campaign, people talk about your campaign and urge friends to vote for you. This has to happen on a reasonably large scale. Sierra Club/ Plan B have a hundred plus volunteers working on the ten candidates they endorsed, this creates buzz. Sean's campaign just does not have enough buzz to create a critical mass of interest to get people to even look at voting for him.
2) No important endorsements. Sure FI-DOS and the Camera endorsed him, but this just isn't enough, because these endorsements do not come with campaigns. A FI-DOS endorsement means a letter to their email list. So what? Many of the people on the FI-DOS list are going to vote, for example, Crystal anyway, for Christ sake, her f**^&ing dog has bitten half of Boulder. There really is no dog issue this campaign, everybody knows that council is not going to touch the issue after the VMP fiasco. So the FI-DOS endorsement doesn't get him that big block of votes you need. The important endorsements are the ones that come with buzz, (not Buzz), and therefore, FI-DOS just doesn't create it.
The Camera endorsement is worth 2,000-3,000 votes. Look at the toke-a-Polk-Cowles split from the last election, it shows the value of a Camera endorsement. If Coleman had the BOC endorsement, it could put him closer to the magic 8,000 to 9,000 votes a candidate will need in order to win seventh place.
3) He is a conservative. Thielin thinks that if a candidate can think for himself/herself, they are qualified. Well Dick Cheney can think for himself, but what he thinks we ain't interested in. Shawn's views just are not in line with Boulder.
4) Thielin's has Crystal finishing behind him, not going to happen. Crystal will get more than twice the total votes of Shawn, even if they both win. And contrary to Thielin's opinion, Crystal seems to go to every candidate forum, has money, too many yardsigns, and is the benefit of the Sierra Club/Plan B literature drop, which will drop 40,000 pieces of paper directly into your recycling in the next weeks.
1) Shawn has no money, therefore no campaign. Many people will not get their information from the internet, or by reading candidates pieces in the paper, but from their campaigns. This means literature, newspaper adds, and neighborhood buzz. If you have money and a campaign, people talk about your campaign and urge friends to vote for you. This has to happen on a reasonably large scale. Sierra Club/ Plan B have a hundred plus volunteers working on the ten candidates they endorsed, this creates buzz. Sean's campaign just does not have enough buzz to create a critical mass of interest to get people to even look at voting for him.
2) No important endorsements. Sure FI-DOS and the Camera endorsed him, but this just isn't enough, because these endorsements do not come with campaigns. A FI-DOS endorsement means a letter to their email list. So what? Many of the people on the FI-DOS list are going to vote, for example, Crystal anyway, for Christ sake, her f**^&ing dog has bitten half of Boulder. There really is no dog issue this campaign, everybody knows that council is not going to touch the issue after the VMP fiasco. So the FI-DOS endorsement doesn't get him that big block of votes you need. The important endorsements are the ones that come with buzz, (not Buzz), and therefore, FI-DOS just doesn't create it.
The Camera endorsement is worth 2,000-3,000 votes. Look at the toke-a-Polk-Cowles split from the last election, it shows the value of a Camera endorsement. If Coleman had the BOC endorsement, it could put him closer to the magic 8,000 to 9,000 votes a candidate will need in order to win seventh place.
3) He is a conservative. Thielin thinks that if a candidate can think for himself/herself, they are qualified. Well Dick Cheney can think for himself, but what he thinks we ain't interested in. Shawn's views just are not in line with Boulder.
4) Thielin's has Crystal finishing behind him, not going to happen. Crystal will get more than twice the total votes of Shawn, even if they both win. And contrary to Thielin's opinion, Crystal seems to go to every candidate forum, has money, too many yardsigns, and is the benefit of the Sierra Club/Plan B literature drop, which will drop 40,000 pieces of paper directly into your recycling in the next weeks.
Will Adam Massey loose it?
The real question is whether Adam will loose the almost guarantee of a seat he had. This slacker had it all rapped up, tricking the business community/developers into thinking he is one of them. But his total laziness cost him the Daily Camera endorsement. While he was a natural for the Camera endorsement, the paper likes to endorse a balance of slow growth planners and downtown businessmen, and Adam and Angelique are the only two on the ticket, Adam clearly blew the interview. If he hadn't, he would have gotten the endorsement.
If you actually meet Adam, you know he doesn't have the stuff, and the Camera obviously figured this out. For heavens sake, they endorsed Shaun Coleman, a nice guy, but clearly too young and inexperienced for the job, over Adam. No Camera endorsement might be enough to move Adam down to the 7-9 place in the race, thus possibly costing him the race.
Remember, the guy also has no campaign. There are barely any Adam yard signs out, there will probably not be a targeted literature drop, if there is indeed any literature drop for Adam. He does not appear to have the money to do a mailing, and its getting way late to put one together. Adam had not appeared at many forums, and he is not walking precincts. His campaign will essentially be newspaper adds, the BOC email list, and the Boulder Realtor email list. In my mind, this means that 20-40% of the voters will have no idea about Adam when they vote, though they will have plenty of info on the other top candidates. This is simply not enough, the Real Big Line is going to have to move Adam off of the top tier down to the competitive level.
If you actually meet Adam, you know he doesn't have the stuff, and the Camera obviously figured this out. For heavens sake, they endorsed Shaun Coleman, a nice guy, but clearly too young and inexperienced for the job, over Adam. No Camera endorsement might be enough to move Adam down to the 7-9 place in the race, thus possibly costing him the race.
Remember, the guy also has no campaign. There are barely any Adam yard signs out, there will probably not be a targeted literature drop, if there is indeed any literature drop for Adam. He does not appear to have the money to do a mailing, and its getting way late to put one together. Adam had not appeared at many forums, and he is not walking precincts. His campaign will essentially be newspaper adds, the BOC email list, and the Boulder Realtor email list. In my mind, this means that 20-40% of the voters will have no idea about Adam when they vote, though they will have plenty of info on the other top candidates. This is simply not enough, the Real Big Line is going to have to move Adam off of the top tier down to the competitive level.
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Friday, October 5, 2007
The Real Bigline
This is how the race for Boulder City Council is going. Completely accurate predictions. Because only the horse race matters, not the policy.
THE REAL BIG LINE - Candidates are listed in the order they will finish.
Slam dunk - these candidates will win unless they are caught reading David Thielin's blog to Larry Craig.
Ken Wilson (1-1) : Ken is doing well in the yard sign war. However, no mailings or literature yet, but its still early. This weekend, the BOC people will put up their four pack of yard signs, so with his broad support, by Monday he will be winning the yard sign war.
Susan Osborne (2:1) : Susan has been around forever, she knows policy, and she has the endorsements of not only PLAN Boulder perfect County, but also those Burrell Outdoor Coalition (BOC). Susan is winning the yard sign war in central and North Boulder. East Boulder and Martin Acres are, thankfully, devoid of even Susan's yard signs. When the BOC four pack hits this weekend, see them signs start to spread. No mailing to me as of yet.
Angelique Espinoza (2-1) : Angelique has signs out. No robo call as of yet. Angie will do very well. Don't expect a lit drop from this business candidate. It will be mailings and robo calls.
Crystal Gray (1-1) : In a normal town, Crystal would finish first. But because Gray makes common sense decisions, BOC didn't endorse her. They prefer to back candidates that have no track record on anything. Would a real interest group endorse only candidates with no track record? They roll the dice and see if they get someone crazy enough to support their positions, i.e, (Suzy Ageton and Ollie!)
Crystal, Susan, and Ken will all benefit from the PBC/ Sierra Club lit drop. I have been told now that Crystal's dog died a couple of years ago, so that's why she didn't get the FI-DOS endorsement.
TWO YEAR SEAT: The FOLLOWING TWO will get a two year seat, they have enough support, but enough negative to keep them out of the four year seats.
Matthew Applebaum (5-1) : While Matt has support, he is disliked by people that have met him. But smart, smart, smart, in fact, smarter than the rest of council combined, minus Ken who is a scientist. However, he is disliked enough that he is out of the running for a four year seat and will only get a crappy two year seat. This will piss him off and he will resign. The Sierra Club endorsement will get him a limited mailing from that group, so it will help.
Adam Massey (6-1) : I have again rethought Adam. Adam might not hang on, let's see what type of work he doesn't do. While he is Lazy Adam Massey, the BOC endorsement will get him a two year seat. Thielin actually though Plan perfect Boulder County would endorse him. I say "Clueless!!", Adam never had a chance for that endorsement because (1) he is a slacker and (2) he is pro-growth and pro plus 55 foot height limit.
I'm going to vote for Adam, just to see the battle between him and Suzy Ageton. Without any big endorsements, he will not be able to do a lit drop. So he will either have to have money for mailings or organize his own volunteers, which will not happen. BOC probably does not have the resources to get its members to drop literature in more than few precincts, the city is big, and it takes lots of people. But biz community support should mean money for Robo calls and mailings.
THE RACE - THIS IS WHAT YOU, THE VOTER WILL DECIDE
You, the voter, have no control over the above six candidates winning. You will only decide who the seventh seat goes to. If Adam doesn't get money for a mailing, then he will move down into this group, and you, the voter, will have control over two of five council seats.
Lisa Morzel (10-1) : Lisa is number one for the seventh seat. Rob Smoke has pledged to vote her into office, just for the Lisa/Suzy A battle that will consume council. Lisa is a Real Environmentalists, Lisa is one, and Boulder has lots of them, ie. Sierra Club. Look for lots more signs and a lit drop coming soon.
Macon Cowles (11-1) : Barely lost to toke-a-Polk, so has a chance. But its a crowded field, so Macon is just on the margin. Loosing to Richard Polk is not easy, but he did it. His voters are the same as Lisa's, most will choose Lisa.
Sorry Macon, in a different year he would win. Macon could pull this one out, and beat Lisa and Adam, if he decides to do some hard work, which means door knocking, and talking to as many people as possible. Relying on yard signs, forums, Thielin's stupid blog, and mailings only gets you eighth place. The last candidate to seriously walk was Sean McGrath, and he won. Why candidates don't do this I don't understand. If your Ken Wilson, you don't have to, right now everybody loves him (wait till 2011 Ken, when you don't get the BOC endorsement). But Macon would win if a couple thousand people met him at the door. Its too late though, this should have started in July.
FI-DOS really should have ensorsed Macon, I have been informed that Macon's dog bags its own poop, in its own colon.
Eugene Pearson (10-1) : Gay in Boulder. Frankly, the gay scene in this town sucks; it appears all there is to do if your a gay man is run for office. (See Jared Polis). How you can stand us Eugene, I cannot fathom, we are not cool. Eugene will finish 9th. The wildcard here is whether the human service community is big enough to make up for the BOC people that will vote against Eugene.
Totally impossible. None of these candidates will win. None will get more than 1500 votes, except Susan Peterson, who will get 5000 to 6000 votes.
Susan Peterson (11-1) : Never heard of her. Plan Broomfield County endorsement meaningless without a good campaign.
Alan O'Hashi (19-1) : Who? Oh, I know this guy, he owns a computer, just like David Thielin. Cool!
Philip Hernandez (20-1) : Who? He doesn have yards sings
Philip Bradley (30-1) : Who? He doesn't live in Broomfield, I was told, but he does stop at the Arby's when he gets the muchies. Nudge nudge.
Shawn Coleman (99-1) : Young ambitious and only one of three minority candidates. Republican. Republican. Coleman will not win. Ahh, but in 2009 . . .
Kathryn Kramer (42-1) : Who?
Tom Riley (49-1) : Also owns a computer, and sends out emails.
Rob Smoke (70-1) : Oh, I know this guy. He tries to date women too young for him. I know this, because his myspace page is close to mine.
Seth Brigham (75-1) : Snore ., . . there still more candidates, give me a break, none of the remaining people have the slightest clue, let's just stop here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posted by darkcloud on November 7, 2007 at 7:53 a.m. on the Daily Camera
The people elected conform utterly to the views of the vast majority of Boulder, who are neither excessive social climbers, gay, nor all that liberal. They're tolerant, home oriented, value actual knowledge and respect smarts, and likely to support those values in their Council. Who knew?
It pains conservatives that Boulder has been a huge success without their exclusive rule, which their reading of the divine genetic code suggests cannot be.
It pains the Left they haven't been able to turn Boulder into a civil Antioch College of absurdity (despite sipped Kool Aid periodically) and allow them to be martyrs in various incarnations of class war failure.
Boulder continually, and politely, apologizes for its success. That REALLY steams the clueless. By which I mean the communities of Dickensian Architectural horror along 36, Denver and its satellite cities. Even Longmont and Ft. Collins have noted and installed some of the legislation Boulder was granted in the 50's and 60's to our great overall benefit.
We have been uncommonly lucky in our governments, and although MY slate wasn't elected, I do not foresee a descent into the gulags of socialism nor the jackboot regulation of heroic developments in this Council either.
Those so shocked by the results might want to conclude they neither really understand nor represent the city, on whose supposed behalf they start too many sentences with "Boulder wants....."