Thursday Open Thread

If you have a question for Rep. Terrance Carroll, leave it in the comments section in the post below. If you would like to discuss something that was brought up in the Q&A, or if you have something else on your mind, this is the place to do it.

Comments

[Dave Chandler]

Mark Udall's vote against the Woolsey amendment to require Bush to come up with a plan to get us out of Iraq, moves me more in the direction of running as the Green Party candidate in the 7th Congressional District. Most Americans, according to the latest polls, are beginning to understand that this war was based on a lie and they believe it was a mistake. Those folks need some principled respresentation in the U.S. House. How would Perlmutter or Lamm have voted on the Woolsey proposal? That's the question REAL patriots and progressives in the 7th District need to have answered.

Read more at: www.DaveChandler.us

[gil]

Great idea Dave.

Thank god we had a Green candidate in the 2000 presidential election to promote progressive issues. The country has really moved since then.

I like how this works. Without Greens and Nader in 2000, we would not be at war in Iraq (thank you green party and the there is no difference between Gore and Bush crowd). But now that we are at war, we need green candidates because Dems aren't opposing the war strongly enough. Congratulations on all your success.

I say - go get'em Dave. The country needs you.

[skibum]

This makes no sense at all. Mark Udall, from CD2, votes against the Woolsey Amnd. so you are more likely to run as a Green in CD7 -- which Mark obviously doesn't represent. If you are mad at Mark, don't take it out on Peggy/Ed.

And, this is of course ridiculous. Mark is one of the few courageous Dems, who, when everyone else was caving in to Bush's patriotic drivel, opposed the war and voted against it, even though at the time many people told him it would end his statewide ambitions.

I think it's fair to say that Mark's "green" credentials are pretty good, given his work on Rocky Flats, James Peak, etc.

Your rationale makes no sense. Running as a Green in CD7 may help your ego, but it will only hurt the Dem nominee, possibly cost us a seat in Congress, and give Tom DeLay one more foot soldier in his never ending quest for power.

[Alan Salazar]

Dear Dave, you can disagree with Mark Udall's vote on the Woolsey Amendment, but you do not need to question his principles or his record of opposing the invasion of Iraq. Read Mark's statement and maybe take a look at the other Iraq policy amendments that were considered but rejected by the House Republican Leadership. The point is that if you want to see change in Congress and our policy in Iraq, adding to the current Republican majority is probably not an effective strategy. By the way, Mark Udall has principled reasons why he believes the Woolsey Amendment was flawed as a legislative vehicle for exiting from Iraq -- there is a smarter and more humane way to accomplish this goal most Americans share.

[Thinking Green]

Dave, good luck the by-laws of the green party are all screwed up. Basically the executive committee can overide and throw out any candidate we bring forward. This is what happened to us in 2000 and 2002 when we were frustrated at the lack of support for environmental issues and consumer protection in the Democrat Party. They talk a good game but when it comes time to deliver it never happens.

The top posts in the green party were filled with Democrat party shills who fought putting candidates on the ballot because they thought we would hurt the Democrat party efforts. What they fail to realize is we hurt both parties because we are a fresh uncoruprted voice in colorado politcs and the Unaffiliates and even members of the other two parties long for a new way.

Sunny Manard was a fantastic candidate who ran in 2002 under our banner. Maybe she would be willing to run for the 7th?

[thinkin]

Anyone else wonder where Donald Johnson went to?

[Go Vols]

Alva et al might have fodder for a new installment for At Least They're Not Our Legislators. In Tennessee this morning, four Democrat state legislators were arrested by the FBI on bribery charges...

"In all, four state lawmakers and one former state senator took tens of thousands of dollars in bribes from undercover federal agents in a two-year sting called 'Operation Tennessee Waltz,' federal agents said."

[Ter Ducken]

That's funny. I thought the same thing today, Thinkin. Donald and his exhaustive list of questions on all topics hasn't been on here in awhile.

[Paul Wayne Marshall]

Dear Rep. Terrance Carroll,

Sir, can you tell me how affective is it to have a Corporation (Colorado Department of Corrections) who's main income is prisoners, going to counter recedivism and continue with current [profit] economic's to sustain employment?I do you recall prison officals saying that prisoners are job security;

I have one other pressing matter. Why would law makers The General Assmebly, allow for Constitutioal Protected Materials to be used by lay persons (Private and Public) to make and or overturn judicial binding decisions involving consumated convictions. Is this not a Direct Causation of Recedivism? And if not, why not?

[Paul Wayne Marshall]

Dear Rep. Terrance Carroll,

Sir, can you tell me how affective is it to have a Corporation (Colorado Department of Corrections) who's main income is prisoners, going to counter recedivism and continue with current [profit] economic's to sustain employment? I do recall prison officals and the Stateof Colorado saying that prisoners are job security for Corrections;

I have one other pressing matter. Why would law makers The General Assmebly, allow for Constitutioal Protected Materials to be used by lay persons (Private and Public) to make and or overturn judicial binding decisions involving consumated convictions. Is this not a Direct Causation of Recedivism? And if not, why not?