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)
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.
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."
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....."