Tancredo Pal Ted Nugent Doesn’t Mince Words

UPDATE: Sticklers for accuracy would like us to point out that Ted Nugent’s reference to a “chimpanzee” did not come in the same breath as Nugent’s calling President Barack Obama a “subhuman mongrel.” It’s possible that Nugent was referring to someone else as a “chimpanzee,” and that possibility should be noted for the record.

Yeah, we know. But technically he could have been talking about somebody else, right?

—–

MSNBC’s Morgan Whitaker:

Aging rock star and NRA board member Ted Nugent has taken his typical extremist rhetoric up a notch calling President Obama a “subhuman mongrel” in a recent interview at a hunting and outdoor trade show in Las Vegas.

“I have obviously failed to galvanize and prod, if not shame enough Americans to be ever vigilant not to let a Chicago communist-raised, communist-educated, communist-nurtured subhuman mongrel [Pols emphasis] like the ACORN community organizer gangster Barack Hussein Obama to weasel his way into the top office of authority in the United States of America,” Nugent said in response to a question about the 2016 election in video from Guns.com…

Acknowledging that many might consider the comment “inflammatory speech,” Nugent said, “I would call it inflammatory speech when it’s your job to protect Americans and you look into the television camera and say what difference does it make that I failed in my job to provide security and we have four dead Americans.”

“What difference does that make? he added. “Not to a chimpanzee [Pols emphasis] or Hillary Clinton, I guess it doesn’t matter.”

When we last saw aging rock legend Ted Nugent of Wang Dang Sweet Poontang fame, he was headlining an email fundraising pitch for Colorado GOP gubernatorial frontrunner Tom Tancredo (photo above right). Ordinarily, we’d expect a leading endorser of a high-profile campaign to swiftly apologize after calling the President of the United States a (making sure we’ve got this right) “subhuman mongrel chimpanzee.”

But this is Tom Tancredo we’re talking about. He’ll want Nugent on tour now.

View the original article here

A Few Words About Rep. Cory Gardner’s Health Insurance

FRIDAY UPDATE: Rep. Cory Gardner on CNN's Crossfire last night, Stephanie Cutter grilled him on his claims of a massive premium increase for a "comparable" plan to his current $650 per month family policy:

We wish Cutter had zeroed in on Gardner's claim about his "100 percent increase" right at the end–he mentioned his current $650 monthly premium, but it doesn't get explored before Rep. Keith Ellison interjected with discussion of rates in Minnesota. Cutter does point out that rates in Gardner's district for a family policy, especially once subsidies are factored, are distantly below the figure Gardner claims he must now pay for "comparable" coverage to his current plan. Nobody we've talked to has been able to reconcile Gardner's shocking claim of well over a 150% increase, mostly because Gardner hasn't supplied enough information about either his existing plan or its supposed replacement to make that possible.

But as the Colorado Independent's Mike Littwin opines today, that might not be the point.

Cruz claims Obamacare has already been a disaster for America, even though it has barely begun. Rep. Cory Gardner claims Obamacare has robbed him of his insurance, although he refuses to give out any details. This is the paranoid world of GOP political theater.

It would be nice if reporters would make Gardner prove what he's asserting and nobody can reconcile, but even if they don't, his claims will be validated by his constituents as the Affordable Care Act takes effect, or proven false by them. We wouldn't wish the horror story Gardner describes on anybody, but it just doesn't add up. What's more the ACA is having lots of positive effects right now that his constituents can see with their own eyes.

Whichever way it comes out, we hope the truth about Gardner's health insurance claims gets as much attention as Gardner is getting right now with his insistence that the sky is falling. Original post follows.

—– 

Rep. Cory Gardner.

The latest cause célèbre in the debate over the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. "Obamacare," concerns a dramatic claim being made by GOP Rep. Cory Gardner about his own family's health insurance. As the Colorado Independent reports:

Colorado Republican Congressman Cory Gardner has been railing against the law since before it passed. Two days ago, he wrote an op-ed for the Colorado Springs Gazette about how he never accepted federal employee health benefits when he went to Washington in 2010 and now his family’s private insurance plan has been cancelled because of “the myriad new regulations, requirements and mandates of the president’s health care law.” Gardner doesn’t offer any details about the provider or the plan nor any specifics on why it got canceled. He wrote that, if he decides to stick with his provider, he’ll have to pay more. He doesn’t say whether he can now find a better plan at a lower rate somewhere else or if he’s even tried. Righty blogger Michelle Malkin reported yesterday that Gardner is carrying the policy cancelation letter around with him as a prop…

Here's the relevant portion of Rep. Gardner's Gazette op-ed:

When I was elected to Congress, I chose not to enroll in the Federal Employee Health Benefits program that is available to Members of Congress and their staffs. Instead, I purchased insurance from the private market because I wanted to be enrolled in the same health insurance network that all Coloradans have access to. It's the same type of plan that many of my friends and neighbors in Yuma and across Colorado have…

Recent analysis has shown that average premiums in Colorado for the individual market will increase between 23 and 25 percent. Moreover, premiums are expected to increase by 17 percent in the small group market. After my current plan is discontinued, the closest comparable plan through our current provider will cost over 100 percent more, going from roughly $650 a month to $1,480 per month. [Pols emphasis]

Let's unpack the things we know and don't know about Gardner's claim that his insurance premium will increase from $650 per month to nearly $1,500 per month. Talking with health insurance experts–who we'll disclose do support Obamacare–the first thing they question is the strikingly low figure for Gardner's "existing" insurance relative to what he claims he'll have to pay for an "equivalent." According to this study from the Kaiser Family Foundation, the 2013 average for an employer-based family health insurance total premium is over $16,300 per year. With that in mind, Gardner's current $650 monthly non-group premium for his family of four could be considered abnormally low–and that's before we learn any details about coverage, deductibles, and other considerations that Gardner has not bothered to disclose.

And that's where Gardner's grandiose claim of this massive increase gets really dubious. Was Gardner's old health insurance a high deductible "catastrophic" insurance plan? Did it not include some (or any) of the "essential health benefits" mandated by the Affordable Care Act, such as lab tests or mental health services? We don't know any of those details, but for determining the truth behind Gardner's allegation, those details are absolutely vital.

Gardner makes much of a claim by Barack Obama during the debate over health care reform that people could "keep" their existing plans. In the text of the law, this refers to "grandfathered" plans that existed before March 23, 2010, and they have to provide enough coverage (no lifetime caps, coverage of children until age 26, etc.). If they don't? Well, they're part of the problem we're solving with health care reform, and that's why better plans are about to be made available through the exchange. What's more, a large percentage of Gardner's constituents are going to get help paying for insurance bought through the exchange–admittedly not Gardner, whose congressional salary of $174,000 per year makes him ineligible for help. For more on benefits of Obamacare in Gardner's district, read this.

Bottom line: In Gardner's op-ed, he quotes "estimates" from sources unknown that premiums "individual market will increase between 23 and 25 percent." The Congressional Budget Office originally estimated more in the neighborhood of 10-13%, and that's before the subsidies for an estimated 57% of policyholders kick in. Some newer studies indicate the predicted rates of increase under Obamacare have been wildly overblown. Above all, no one can show us any rational figures that reconcile with Gardner's claim of an over 100% increase for the "closest comparable" plan. Until Gardner is willing to open the proverbial books and show precisely what the apples-to-apples differences are between his existing plan and his "equivalent" new one, we're just not buying any of this–and reporters need to ask Gardner for the proof.

View the original article here

A Few Words For Proposition AA Pothead Hypocrites

TUESDAY UPDATE: We received this response from Mason Tvert, one of the principal organizers of the Amendment 64 campaign, denouncing Robert Corry's Proposition AA antics:

My name is Mason Tvert, I was one of the two official proponents of Amendment 64, and I co-directed the campaign in support of the initiative. Rob Corry has repeatedly exaggerated his role in the drafting of Amendment 64 and the Yes on 64 campaign, and to point to him as an example of the campaign being hypocritical is unfair.

The two primary drafters of the initiative, Brian Vicente (who was also a proponent and campaign co-directr) and Steve Fox, are supporting Prop. AA, as am I and my current organization, the Marijuana Policy Project, which was the largest financial backer of the Yes on 64 campaign. It is also worth noting that Rob Corry is hardly representative of the "marijuana industry," whereas the Medical Marijuana Industry Group is by definition representative of the industry – and it is fully in support of Prop. AA.

The proponents of Amendment 64, the primary drafters of 64, the Yes on 64 campaign's management, and the Yes on 64 campaign's primary financial backers are all in support of Prop. AA. They also were in support of the 15-10 tax plan and helped push it through the legislature. Thus, it would be appreciated if you would stop pointing to the actions of one individual who played a very minimal role in the 64 campaign and suggesting it reflects the positions of the 64 campaign. There is no group of people working harder to pass Prop. AA than those who ran the Yes on 64 campaign, as we believe its passage is critical to the successful implementation of the initiative.

If Corry really doesn't speak for the pro-Amendment 64 campaign, we're delighted to stand corrected–and we hope media outlets will make this distinction in the future as well.

—–

Robert Corry.

As the Boulder Daily Camera's Amy Bounds reports:

Those opposing a marijuana sales tax ballot question are looking to replicate a successful campaign event in Denver by handing out free joints at 11 a.m. Monday on Boulder's Pearl Street Mall…

“Boulder has been victimized by floods,” said Rob Corry, who helped organize the event and hopes to defeat Proposition AA, a statewide pot tax measure. “We want to bring some flood relief to folks.”

…Corry, who helped draft Amendment 64, [Pols emphasis] which legalized the sale of recreational pot to adults, called it the biggest tax increase in state history. He said it would create a “dysfunctional” market.

Robert Corry, longtime local pro-marijuana attorney and sometime associate of the right-wing Independence Institute, was indeed a major supporter of Amendment 64. Amendment 64, in turn, was sold to the public as a revenue-generating measure in addition to saner criminal justice policy. Don't take our word for it, here's how they said it themselves:

Bottom line: the only difference between the revenue measure Amendment 64 Corry wrote and sold the public on in 2012, and Proposition AA, is a 5-10% additional sales tax. The fifteen percent excise tax on retail marijuana, as well as the 2.9% sales tax all goods sold in Colorado are taxed at, were benefits that Corry and friends promoted with when the initiative passed last fall. If Proposition AA fails, it's unclear what might happen–some say Proposition AA was forced by the language in Amendment 64 not being in compliance with the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, others insist to us that the legislature could pass under the authority granted in Amendment 64 the 15% excise tax without Proposition AA.

Either way, marijuana legalization was sold to the public as a way to generate revenue for education, promising to "regulate marijuana like alcohol." Alcohol, tobacco, and other such vices are subjected to much higher taxes than other products. It would be absurd for marijuana to not be similarly taxed to other such vices. For Robert Corry to turn around and try to kill the taxes that resulted in many "yes" votes on Amendment 64 is exactly the bad faith outgoing Senate President John Morse warned of when he tried to link passage of these taxes to allowing retail marijuana stores to open in January. You'll recall this was the short-lived legislation which prompted the Marijuana Policy Project to attack Morse, an attack that was eagerly served up by opportunistic Republicans to liberal voters in Morse's district. As you can see today, Morse was right.

And if the marijuana industry wants to show responsibility instead of looking like a bunch of untrustworthy freeloaders, they'll drop Corry and his disreputable antics like a hot brick.

View the original article here

A Few Words About Morse and Marijuana

The Colorado Springs Gazette's editorial page blared a nasty headline yesterday targeting liberal support for Senate President John Morse, perfectly timed with robocalls going out to Democrats in Senate District 11:

It's a safe bet many of the students who rallied for Morse last week would also rally for more marijuana rights. That's not to pass judgment on Colorado College. It's just a young, liberal college thing to advocate marijuana freedom.

Morse claims to favor legalization, but advocates of that cause do not favor authoritarian Morse.

Don't ask us. Ask the Marijuana Policy Project, the country's largest and best-funded organization working toward legalization of pot. The organization feels so threatened by Morse – a purported advocate of their cause – they named him this year's worst legislator in the United States…

If Morse could tax the air we breathe, he probably would. So at the end of the last legislative session, he co-sponsored a bill that would have suspended Colorado's Amendment 64, the law that legalizes marijuana, unless voters approve a giant tax increase on pot.

Our readers will recall coverage of the resolution in question here, which had the shortest lifespan of any legislation we can remember–about three hours from introduction to demise as alarmed marijuana activists descended on the capitol. That has apparently (we didn't actually know this) led the Marijuana Policy Project, a respected pro-legalization thinktank, to label Morse "the worst legislator in the United States."

The robocalls hitting Democrats in Senate District 11 cite the MPP, but are paid for by a group linked to longtime GOP operative Patrick Davis, former National Republican Senatorial Committee political director–and who we can assure liberal Democrats has no interest in legalizing marijuana. A larger problem is that both MPP and the robocalls are flat wrong about that bill's purpose. Senate Concurrent Resolution 003 would not have "resulted in the repeal of a voter-approved initiative to regulate marijuana like alcohol." None of the provisions legalizing personal possession and use of marijuana would have been affected. The resolution would have tied the opening of retail marijuana stores to the approval of the marijuana tax initiative headed for the ballot this November. As long as the tax initiative passed, the stores would be allowed to open. If not, well, they'd need to try again.

As we've said over and over about Amendment 64, the revenue opportunity is one of the big reasons pot is now legal. We believe it was a big part of motivating voters who were otherwise ambivalent about legalization.

Senator Morse said after the bill died that he introduced it to "get the attention" of the marijuana industry, which has been noncommittal to outright opposed to the tax initiative. The problem is that Amendment 64 was indeed not written in compliance with TABOR, which means the tax provisions built into the amendment are invalid–that's why the second initiative is necessary. Morse, simply put, was concerned about bad faith.

Those are the facts of what happened. We recognize that there are some who will read all of it and still disagree with Morse's short-lived proposal, and that's fine. The facts of this are not nearly what they're being represented to be by either pro-legalization advocates or opportunistic Republicans. And we think a full airing of the true facts would leave a lot of Democrats backing Morse–including plenty of pot smokers.

View the original article here

A Few Words About The New Colorado Logo

UPDATE: Brand Colorado clarifies conflicting reports about the source of funds to develop the new brand:

Just to clarify on the cost…[t]he Statewide Internet Portal Authority and the Colorado Tourism Office contributed a combined $800,000 to the project. But, corporate sponsors including Crocs, Boulder Brands and Crestone Capital and others also contributed funds to Making Colorado. Additionally, companies including Atomic 20, Linhart Public Relations, Made Movement, Karsh Hagan, Sterling Rice Group and Egg Strategy, as well as numerous individuals and freelancers, contributed thousands of hours of pro bono services, totaling more than $1.5 million. 

It is estimated that the new state brand could save some state agencies, like CDOT, as much as $300,000 per year in marketing expenses. Multiply even a fraction of that number by 22 state agencies, and you can see how the new brand will actually save the state money.

—–

As the Denver Business Journal's Ed Sealover reports:

After a year-long search that cost state officials some $1.1 million, Aaron Kennedy, Colorado's chief marketing officer, officially will announce at the Colorado Innovation Summit Thursday that they have settled on a triangle-shaped mountain reminiscent of the state's license plate to be the official state brand.

The brand will be used on all state vehicles and agencies, and also can be attached to the products of companies that design, manufacture or grow things in the state, in order to make people outside Colorado think positively about the culture here…

Though as the Denver Post's Steve Raabe reports, not all items "manufactured or grown" within the state of Colorado need apply:

"Everybody says just use the C," Hickenlooper said referring to the red "C" filled with a golden circle on the state flag. "The problem is we don't control it, and it's on a lot of things, escort services and marijuana shops, that the state doesn't want to be identified with." [Pols emphasis]

Setting aside the dissing of Colorado's flag, which we happen to like, we're not really sure about Gov. John Hickenlooper's rationale here. For one thing, the state's new logo has been likened to a hazard warning sign, which is an extremely popular basis for all kinds of stoner art. That means this new logo is more or less certain to be incorporated in some form into a "marijuana shop" design.

As for conveying a "unique brand," Twitter user Janus303 addresses the topic of uniqueness pretty well: 

And our personal favorite (cue conspiracy theorists):

Bottom line: there's nothing about this logo to get overly upset about, given that, well, everyone's a critic, and reportedly no taxpayer dollars were expended on its design (see clarification above). We don't get all wrapped up in consultant gobbledegook about the esoterics of branding, in fact we find that stuff cheesy–but it's fine for the state to have one. To the extent that the logo looks vaguely like the classic Colorado license plate, we're okay with that. It's not really overwhelmingly awesome or anything, but we don't think it should be. Simple and unpretentious is fine with us.

But like we said, everyone's a critic, so your mileage is free to vary. If you have a better suggested logo, we'd love to see it, even though the search is over.

View the original article here

A Few Words on “Taking Secession Seriously”

One proposed North Colorado flag (via Progress Now).

Today, the Denver Post devotes most of its front page, and a great deal of interior space, to tremendously in-depth coverage of the movement by (mostly) northeastern plains Colorado counties to secede and form a new state informally referred to today as North Colorado. Under a headline quote beginning with the words "they feel they have been ignored," there's a photo of a forlorn 13-year-old rodeo contestant riding a mostly empty carousel in Kit Carson County.

We later learn, reading reporter Monte Whaley's front-page story, that the headline "they feel they have been ignored" quote is none other than Sen. Greg Brophy, Yuma County farmer and GOP candidate for governor–but that is curiously not attributed above the fold. We assume readers will figure that out? We were a little struck by that. And does that mean Brophy is a supporter of secession and a candidate for governor of the rest of Colorado? That's kind of weird. We digress.

All told there are eight articles published today in the Post on the "51st state" movement, telling stories from the various counties where the question will appear on the ballot, as well as two where it won't. Once you get past Sen. Brophy's self-serving headline, the stories go into details about the concerns of some rural residents, while keeping the extreme unlikelihood of success in what we suppose you can call a reasonable context.

?We have argued in this space that the mere talk of secession by elected Republican leaders in these mostly sparsely populated counties is not only a major long-term embarrassment to themselves, but actually detracts from what may be in some cases legitimate issues of equitable funding and services in rural areas relative to what the populous Front Range counties enjoy.

Nothing in the oddly expansive coverage of the secession movement in the Denver Post today changes our mind. 

Our original proposal for the flag of “Weldistan.”

?

Instead of working on solutions to their grievances, otherwise obscure county-level politicians are getting their proverbial fifteen minutes of fame pushing a totally unworkable secession proposal, or the related and equally unworkable "Phillips County Plan" to unconstitutionally gerrymander the legislature by county instead of population. The justifying issues voiced by rural residents interviewed in these stories range from fair questions about mandated staffing levels in a small rural hospital to mindless hot air about how city dwellers "just think that their hamburgers just show up at McDonald's." 

The state's new gun safety laws still rate a mention from secession proponents, but as part of a diffuse and in many cases poorly thought-out laundry list of grievances that vary from person to person. What binds them together is the willingness to break up the state of Colorado over these grievances–but you have to wonder if these aren't the kind of people who would propose radical solutions for, you know, just about anything.

Folks, we are straining to be polite about this. We have to admit that the absurdity of this whole business makes that difficult. As citizens of a state that we (and we hope our readers) love, from the mountains to the plains and even including those nasty, godless cities, we're starting to have a more emotive reaction to these radical idiots who happen to hold minor elected office seriously proposing to break up our great state. Our growing irritation with this nonsense is in direct proportion to the extent to which it is being taken seriously by the media. 

The fact is, Colorado's original boundaries are not going to change anytime soon. We can think of half a dozen better candidates for a "51st state," places like Washington, DC or Puerto Rico with far more legitimate cases to make for statehood. It's a simple fact that a huge majority of the state's population lives along the urban Front Range corridor, and rural counties are part of a state with an increasingly dominant urban electorate. The interdependency between urban and rural areas is significant, but there's just no way that 4,000 people in a rural county are ever going to "be equal" with 500,000 in any number of Front Range counties. As upsetting as that may be to that 13-year-old cowboy riding the carousel in Burlington, they shouldn't be.

In the end, we hope rural residents of our state are smart enough to see through this irresponsible waste of time concocted by unserious local politicians, and spend their energy on creating solutions instead of self-serving headlines.

View the original article here

How To Improve Communication Skills – Learn To Save A Relationship With Magic Relationship Words

To make clear of the Magic Relationship Words guide, I am glad to introduce it through 7 below parts:

What Is Magic Relationship Words?How Will Magic Relationship Words Help You Save a Relationship?How Will Magic Relationship Words Benefit You?How Much To Get Started?What Will You Get From The Magic Relationship Words Package?Is It Guaranteed That Magic Relationship Words Will Work For You?Does Magic Relationship Words Give Any Support?

 

Magic Relationship Words created by Susie and Otto Collins is a program that guides you on how to improve communucations skills.

Aiming to help you save a relationship, the authors want to share some magic words you should make use of right away so you can absolutely start applying them in your relationship or even marriage instanly. 
The authors have tested these words over and over in a real laboratory and their own relationship. They know these words will work in your relationship and life and guarantee that with the 100% Satisfaction Promise!

Susie and Otto Collins have organized their “Magic Relationship Words” guidebook into 3 separate parts: 
-   Part 1: you will get the “magic words mindset” to communicate to your partner and others amongs your important persons in life. 
-  Part 2: The authors provide you with the exact body language, tonality, and attitudes you will to need to make sure that all of your other parts are congruent with the new words you will use. 
-  Next, you will discover as many as 83 chapters that concentrate on guiding you the phrase, word, or even sentence-starter. 

Besides, our website also provides some writings that provide many dating tips to attract a person. You can check out Daygame Blueprint, PUA Club, and Black Belt Seduction to get more knowledge about this issue.

There are many great things about the Magic Relationship Words I am about to list down here that may attract you easily:

-         Each chapter is presented in the similar short and consistent format with 3 separate parts

-         This is a downloadable e-book so that you will get access to it instantly after purchasing the package

-         You can read it from the computer screen or even print it out to bring along with you and read it whenever you want.

-         This guide is written in the short chapter format to make it easy to read from cover to cover

-         Here is something that users said about this guide:

There is a one-time cost of as little as $47 for you (not a sky-high cost that you may think about) – an attractive price to own a great tool to save your relationship that will offer you many helpful advice and wonderful words you can use for saving a relationship. This special packge just takes you $47 for an entire use. Thus, you should make an order right today for good! I bet that you will be totally satisfied with it, so hurry up!

Trying the Magic Relationship Words guide right today, you will get its valuable full package that includes:

-         The main guidebook “Magic Relationship Words”

Specially, you will have chance to get these attractive free explosive bonuses:

-         “21 Words, Phrases and Sentences to NEVER Say To Your Partner, Spouse or Lover”

-         “10 Communication Mistakes Most People Make In Their Relationships and What They Can Do To Fix Them”

-         “Susie and Otto Collins’ Love and Relationship Newsletter” 

All these wonderful things will come to you within a downloadable package!

Yes! In case you don’t feel satisfied about the Magic Relationship Words guide due to any reasons, or you discover that it cannot work as it promised before, all invested cash will come back to you with no question from the author Michael Webb. The Magic Relationship Words guide provides a no question-asked, risk-free 100% Satisfaction Guarantee and also 8 weeks of Money Back Commitment. Thus, it actually costs you nothing to waste for a try! Do not hesitate! 

 

Certainly! If you have any questions about this product, you can contact to the authors at here for the most helpful supports directly. 

If you have any doubts or want more knowledge about this communication training course, leave your comments below, I’m going to answer all of them soon! Are you ready to get this chance to save your relationship and keep your partner?

View the original article here

A Few Words About Hubris And Ken Buck

2010 GOP Senate nominee Ken Buck.

Amid the GOP's ongoing struggle to find an opponent–any opponent–to challenge incumbent Sen. Mark Udall in 2014, the Denver Post's Lynn Bartels puts 2010 Senate loser Ken Buck's name back in the mix:

Buck for months has been mentioned as a likely candidate for state attorney general, but in recent days several high-profile Republicans have announced their candidacy for the office and the talk has switched to a Senate bid.

"We have been talking about it, and I'll leave it there," his wife, state Rep. Perry Buck, R-Windsor, confirmed Tuesday.

Much of the speculation about Buck's political future has been on hold since his battle with cancer was disclosed in March. Bartels reports today that Buck's cancer remains in remission, and he is undergoing his last round of chemotherapy this week.

It's true that Buck lost in 2010 by a relatively small margin to appointed incumbent Sen. Michael Bennet. But the underlying reasons for that narrow and trend-countering loss for the GOP in an otherwise GOP "wave year" revealed a fatal flaw in the newfound political vigor offered by the "Tea Party." Buck lost the election, as our readers know well, largely due to overwhelming opposition from women voters. Buck's hard-line views against abortion and gay rights, and October revelations of a rape case he had refused to prosecute claiming the victim had "buyer's remorse," broke the back of a Senate campaign that wasn't supposed to lose. Since 2010, this race has become a model for Democrats to alienate women and independents from wedge-issue hardliners.

We get that the GOP bench is very thin for 2014, but re-running Ken Buck is not the answer.

In fact, the suggestion seems almost…masochistic.

Full story: A Few Words About Hubris And Ken Buck

View the original article here