CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

30%↑

15%↑

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
April 08, 2010 05:32 AM UTC

Dan Slater Does Not Speak For Many Colorado Democrats

  • 73 Comments
  • by: peacemonger

Dear Mr. Slater,

I read your blog diary, and it was well-written.  I applaud you for making your decision about who to support for the US Senate race in CO and for sticking by “your man”. I do not argue with the fact that you made an endorsement. That is between you and party rule-keepers, not me. This campaign has prompted many new inquiries about the rules, and we are all learning everyday. I am also a party officer (a much lower level than you, of course), and not as confident we should be taking public stands at this point, so I prefer to blog anonymously until I am more certain.

For the record, I will support either Democratic candidate that wins the primary — the alternative is unthinkable.

I am disappointed you accused Michael Bennet of “snubbing his nose” at the state party system. Many of us who have been involved in the state party do not agree with you, and are offended by your speaking on our behalf without permission.  Senator Bennet has done everything humanly possible to try to earn the respect and support of the Colorado State Democratic Party since the day he was appointed.

Democratic activists should be aware Andrew Romanoff’s interest in the Senate was not exactly “grass roots” from the start. Before Michael was appointed, Andrew Romanoff ran an actual campaign to be appointed called the “Appoint Andrew” campaign, which actually spent money on hired staff to get him appointed. Petitions were circulated at state party functions and people were urged to sign them, giving the impression that the state almost unanimously wanted Andrew appointed. People seemed fine with that — no one else seemed to be as interested, and he was a good choice… why not? The effort was both creative and opportunistic, yet, no one seemed to mind.

People should also know Governor Ritter held interviews for the position of Senator, and to my knowledge, roughly half a dozen people “applied” for the job. It is unknown what Michael Bennet said, or what Andrew Romanoff may have said, but something caused Governor Ritter to choose Michael Bennet over the Speaker.  

Many of us in the state party have worked with Senator Bennet and his staff during the past sixteen months on issues that affect all Americans, not just Coloradans. We were impressed and delighted with his effectiveness as Senator, and eagerly signed on as supporters, despite the fact we also respected Andrew Romanoff. The choice was made freely. There are thousands of us around Colorado who fall into this category.  

I think I speak for many people who may be offended by your assumptions about us — we were not “snubbed” in any way. Senator Bennet has been extremely approachable, accessible, and responsive to our concerns. He has traveled every county in the state and held hundreds of house parties, town halls, and other meetings to get to know us better. He attended countless county meetings, district meetings, health care meetings and group meetings. He did everything possible to let us know he was listening, and it is obvious in his voting record, which according to the Wall Street Journal, is 92% consistent with the Democratic party — almost identical to Mark Udall’s rating.  

The “evidence” you offer in your blog diary is the fact that Senator Bennet is taking the opportunity to petition onto the ballot, as well as to win over-and-above the number of delegates required to rightfully earn his place on it. This is in no way an insult to me, or to many of my friends who support Senator Bennet. In fact, it is a sign he respects the process twice as much — he is willing to do everything he can to demonstrate his candidacy is worthy of our support. I for one, respect him even more because he has never taken our support for granted. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about former Speaker Romanoff.

Some of us are a little offended by supporters of the Senator’s primary opponent who assumed, beginning September 7th, we would drop our support for the Senator to support the legislator we have known for almost a decade. We were familiar with the strengths and liablities of both candidates, we freely chose Michael Bennet over Andrew Romanoff, and we would appreciate it if our choice was treated with the respect we all deserve.

 

One of the attacks Romanoff supporters frequently make toward Senator Bennet is that he has not been involved a long time with the Colorado Democratic Party, as if that were a requirement for holding public office. May I remind you that it took tens of thousands of Obama supporters, many of whom had never attended a single caucus, primary, district meeting or convention, to turn this state “blue” for the first time in decades. Until that time, the state party machine alone was not able to do the job. Barack Obama’s minions joined forces with our state party regulars, often leading the way, to get the job done. It was a team effort, combining party insider-knowledge with the fresh energy and ideas of a new generation. Niether “camp” could have done it alone.

In September, when Andrew Romanoff jumped into this race to primary an effective new Democratic sitting Senator, he promised us the primary would be a good thing for our state party. Instead, it has divided the party, pitting neighbor against neighbor, precinct committee people against their team members, state leaders against federal leaders, old-time party leaders against new Democrats. In short, it gave us exactly what the newest registered voters told us kept them disinterested in politics until Barack Obama — personal attacks, mud-slinging, cliqueishness, and party politics-as-usual. Every day of this divisive primary will mean more voter suppression for the Democrats in the long run, based on my conversations with thousands of these new Obama Democrats during the 2008 campaign. Is that really what Andrew intended?

As a member of Organizing for America and a long-time party member and officer, I welcome these new people into our fold, the ones who will still have us that is, and I ask you to cease insulting their intelligence and discounting their opinions. Years spent in the state party system alone do not make someone a committed Democrat, any more than living in a garage makes a person a car.

Best wishes with the campaign of your friend and candidate, Andrew Romanoff, Mr. Slater. Those of us who support Senator Bennet will respect your decision even more, when you show some respect for ours.  

Tweet
Share

Comments

73 thoughts on “Dan Slater Does Not Speak For Many Colorado Democrats”

  1. Peacemonger you are certainly entitled to support whoever you want and to your opinion about Bennet’s leadership and his decision to circulate petitions. But when you mix in misinformation, lies, innuendo and outright hypocrisy it kind of muddies the waters to put it mildly.

    False Statement #1 – You say:

    Andrew Romanoff’s interest in the Senate was not exactly “grass roots” from the start. Before Michael was appointed, Andrew Romanoff ran an actual campaign to be appointed called the “Appoint Andrew” campaign, which actually spent money on hired staff to get him appointed.

    Do you have ANYTHING at all to back-up your claim that there was a “campaign” that “spent money on hired staff”?! I’ve asked directly and that claim is false. Are you trying to insinuate that if wing-nut Wade Norris was advocating for Andrew that was a “paid campaign”? We can ask him here but from the actual fact-checking I’ve done, this is a lie. What is your evidence? Did you, Caroman & Madco send texts to each other claiming this? Did you ask Bennet’s family when you were hanging out? Check it with Ray (or his alter ego Raymond)?

    Misleading statement #2, you say:

    it is a sign he respects the process twice as much — he is willing to do everything he can to demonstrate his candidacy is worthy of our support.

    Really?! Bennet hiring professional petition gatherers is a sign of his commitment to meet voters? No, it’s a sign of either his concern of what is happening at assemblies or his strategy to lower expectations and claim a great victory when he gets 35-38%. How is sending paid petition circulators Bennet meeting voters? Is this kind of like the multiple groups of voters in Washington County that stood around waiting for him after he filmed his latest Carhartt Commercial only to have him never show? Well we see how they felt about him from the results of the Washington County assembly – 3 to 1 for Romanoff.

    Hypocrisy Headliner – you write:

    I am also a state party officer (a lower level than you, of course), and not as confident we should be taking public stands at this point, so I prefer to blog anonymously until I am more certain.

    You are a state party officer? Really? And you write endless diaries here and squarestate complaining that the primary has people picking sides, then you bash Romanoff and his supporters or those that take sides and then tell everybody you just wish people would get along. You’re about as credible on your cries for party unity as Pat Waak when she claims to be neutral (ask the volunteers who have been at CDP and overheard the anti-Romanoff, pro-Bennet calls) or that crack-pot who posts on HuffingtonPost editing when her posts are called-out for their lies, using Passover to bash Romanoff and endlessly posting on Facebook attacking Romanoff. Not that any of them or you are any better than some of Romanoff’s crazies like JO or Sharon Hanson, but you’re right in the pot with them except your hypocrisy takes it to a whole new level – at least they’re honest and consistent instead of calling for peace one minute while launching attacks the next.

    Bottom line is this primary has people picking sides. You support Bennet. We get it. I support Romanoff. People probably get that. Let’s stick to the facts though instead of making stuff up to back-up your claims.

    Madco, Caroman, Ray

    1. Quit living in a fantasy world. The Romanoff campaign knows it, too.

      Believe me, I’ve started naming names, and they don’t like it.

      I don’t believe that you are true blue.

      Perhaps you should post under a different sock puppet.  

      1. To be fair to Andrew Romanoff. I decided to check with the Southern Poverty Law Center. He did an internship for them from October 1987 to December 1987. He did work on the Intelligence Project which tracked the KKK. He did not practice law for them as a supporter of his was under the impression. He was about 20 years old at the time and did not have his JD then He has not practiced law anywhere to my knowledge because one has to pass the bar to be licensed.

        I’ve been associated with the SPLC for over 5 years and was invited by Rosa Parks and Morris Dees to be a founding honoree for the Wall of Tolerance Monument.

        Call them up and verify them.  

        1. Oh yea? Well Ray, to be fair to Michael Bennet I decided to check with DPS and with Anschutz where he worked on the Regal cinema deal. He did work for both of them. He was in his 30s at the time and did not have a degree in early child psychology or his Screen Actors Guild card. He has never run an ice-cream truck or starred in a Rocky sequel.

          I’ve driven past many Denver Public Schools and have been invited by multiple friends to see movies at theaters owned by Regal and had an ice cream while I was there?

          So what is the point of any of this? That it would appear that both of these candidates did work where they say they did, don’t have degrees they haven’t said they had or experience doing things they have not claimed. There are a lot of people on both sides who may have inadvertently misrepresented their preferred candidate’s background. It was more likely out of confusion, ignorance or wanting to make their guy sound good. Heck, I had a conversation with a couple of young Bennet staffers (all from out of state) who said Bennet was from Colorado, had never spent time in DC growing up and didn’t work for a right-wing bigot doing M&A. They also looked at a delegate with a straight face and asked “What has Andrew really ever done for Colorado? Nothing. He was one of a hundred people in the legislature and happened to be there when some bills got passed but he hasn’t spent any more time going around Colorado than Bennet has.” Lies? Ignorance? Wishful thinking? I wrote it off as supporters not knowing what they’re really talking about not some nefarious attempt to distort a record and these were paid Bennet staffers.

          1. Stating one is a civil rights attorney and offering advice without a license is a real problem. Contact Elvis Boling for details.That wasn’t a staffer making the claim.  

            Claiming to be a civil rights activist for a 3 month internship at age 20, while at the same time supporting very discriminatory legislation in 2006 offends those who have spent their enitre lives fighting for civil rights.  

            1. Thanks for holding them to the fire, Ray.

              The fact that Andrew Romanoff interned with the SPLC is a good thing, regardless of his age. I don’t blame him for mentioning it. I also suspect he had good reasons for calling the special session last year (someone finally explained it on the blogs recently).

              I have a lot of beefs with camp Romanoff. This isn’t one of them. JMHO.

              I think all of this is a distraction because they don’t want to acknowledge the “Appoint Andrew” was an organized campaign, and was responsible for the claim that “61 of 64 counties” supported Andrew. It wasn’t like it was a vote. They just had a petition and said, “sign here”.  No other candidate in the interview process was doing what they did. I give them credit for their ingenuity. Smart politics is smart politics, whatever team you are on.

              1. After the session ended he glowingly said what wonderful legislation had been passed.

                Ask the Rights for All People and Reform for America crowd how they feel about him.

                His work in Africa is commendable. One doesn’t have to travel to find discrimination, however. At least 12 million people in this country have no rights whatsoever. Many live in Colorado, which has some of the most oppressive laws on the books in the country. The Speaker participated in passing those laws.

                Where was the civil rights activist when that legislation passed?

            2. You were such an honorable gentleman on S2 by admitting that AR didn’t try to say he was an attorney, and here you go, buying it all back by insinuating that he did…and was even practicing without a license.

              I mean, do you go back and read what you write?

            3. It’s true. When I meet Andrew in Oct of 09 at the pipe fitter union hall; I told him about an event when my wife and I were denied service in LA. He told me he was a lawyer. I honestly thought he was a civil rights lawyer… But I found out he has not passed the bar.

              1. Actually, academic degrees and professional certifications don’t impress me as much as strong leadership.  I don’t see negative, snarky, sarcastic people as good leaders.  I thought Andrew’s’ speech at Assembly today was embarrassing (to him). Saying a respected sitting Senator in your own party is “trolling for contributions”?  This goes into the category of dissing Jared Polis a month or so ago.  

                If Andrew wins the primary, he will be a lonely guy in Washington after pissing off everyone else at the federal level. It’s hard to be effective when you’ve alienated your own colleagues before you’ve started.

    2. I haven’t made up anything.

      I don’t text.

      Appont Andrew was/is real. Though it will take someone with better web skills than I to find the original web page – http://www.appointandrew.com

      http://salsa.democracyinaction…

      http://www.facebook.com/posted…

      I have no idea whether Romanoff was involved and I don’t know about paid staff. I’d guess I don’t know a  lot.

      I do know it feels like you and others are trying to pick a fight with me. Why?

        2. It was very effective.  I should correct that I don’t have proof Arthur Lewis was paid, but he does list “Appoint Andrew” listed as his previous employer.  He did an amazing job! Many people I’ve talked to remember how persuasive he was when passing around the petititions.

                    1. Because I don’t know, I don’t make any wild ass claims. I only speak what I know is true AND I can back it up.

                      If I wanted to, I could say that Bennet worked for a Republican bigot. AND I could back it up with factually information.

                    2. which no one denies. We’ve said 100 times their politics was miles apart from each other and that is why Anschutz is backing the Republican. We’ve also pointed out that most people work for Republicans at some point in their lives.  

                      Does proximity to Republicans at work make someone at Republican?  Hmmmm… that is interesting. Andrew was at the state capitol at the same time Owens was. They must share one mind.  Were Schwalm and Schultheis there, too… let me look it up…?

        3. For those interested, I found this from the internet Whois directory:

          Domain Name: APPOINTANDREW.COM

          Created on: 23-Dec-08

          Expires on: 23-Dec-10

          Last Updated on: 24-Dec-09

          Administrative Contact:

          Fenberg, Stephen fenberg@gmail.com

          New Era Colorado

          2475 Broadway

          #101

          Boulder, Colorado 80304

          United States

          (720) 244-2062

          The date created is just a week or two before the appointment happened — Dec 23, 2008, but I have no idea who Stephen Fenberg might be or his relationship to Andrew or his campaign.

          2. there was no Appoint Andrew campaign.

            Or something.

            I met A Stepehn Fenberg around that time- may not be the same guy.  The guy I met is the Exec Dirctor at New Era Colorado in Boulder.

            1. We talked about it once. I told him he did a great job. Several other Bennet supporters who used to be Romanoff supporter remembering signing the petition he passed around.

      2. Madco, I apologize if I unfairly lumped you in. Just as some toss all Romanoff supporters in with JO & Sharon, if I have unfairly thrown the frequency of your support of Bennet in with some of the over the top others, then I apologize & retract that.

        My other comments questioning and correcting peacemonger stand

      3. None of the links you have above prove that Andrew was behind any of them.  What’s so wrong with fans of the Speaker wanting him to be appointed?  We were ALL asking for that back then.

        If you want to see if there ever was an appointandrew.com, try this: http://www.archive.org/web/web…

        Here’s what I get: “sorry, no matches.”  So what are you talking about?

        It also appears that Steve Fenberg from New Era Colorado owns “appointandrew.com”  Again, what the heck is so wrong with supporters wanting to see him appointed?

        You guys really are reaching here…

        1. Here-

          archive.org says they have nothing after 2005 – but in 2005 Secretary Salazar was still the Senator.

          Are you seriously suggesting that Andrew didn’t want the appointment in 2008?

          Nothing is wrong with fans wanting him to have been appointed.  Though, no, we wern’t “ALL” asking for that back then.

          I never said Andrew was behind “appoint andrew”.  Clearly Steve Fenberg did the web site.

          If there’s any reach it’s suggesting that real money was spent on the Speaker’s effort to get appointed. I can’t document that – not sure anyone could.  The website cost something- but I’ve done a few that were very cheap. The only other reach is pretending offense that anyone would claim Andrew wanted the appointment.

    3. 1. Yes, there was an Appoint Andrew campaign. Arthur Lewis, now in Washington, was paid. Internet links to it that were up a month ago have been taken down, but many party people will tell you it existed. Ask.

      2. There is no point there at all. We disagree on the conclusion.

      3. I’ve never “bashed” Andrew Romanoff. I defend our sitting Senator, and I point out the dangers of Romanoff’s negative campaign. Go back and compare all my posts and comments to the real bashers like O’Toole. It’s easy to do.

      4. Bringing other posts and other supporters into your arguments have no relevance to my diary.  

      5. The bottom line is this primary is more than just about picking sides. This primary is about the future of our state party — something some of us seem more concerned about than others.  

      1. None of the links you have above prove that Andrew was behind any of them.  What’s so wrong with fans of the Speaker wanting him to be appointed?  We were ALL asking for that back then.

        If you want to see if there ever was an appointandrew.com, try this: http://www.archive.org/web/web…

        Here’s what I get: “sorry, no matches.”  So what are you talking about?

        It also appears that Steve Fenberg from New Era Colorado owns “appointandrew.com”  Again, what the heck is so wrong with supporters wanting to see him appointed?

        You guys really are reaching here…

  3. But not today. This statement:  

    I am also a state party officer (a lower level than you, of course), and not as confident we should be taking public stands at this point

    ,

    I am a supporter of Andrew Romanoff for the Senate. The above quote is a disengenuous piece of crap. Why then, Peacemonger, did we hear no admonition from you regarding the President of the United States coming to Colorado to Campaign for Michael Bennet?

    Or the Governor and any number of Democratic elected officials who have taken sides IN A PRIMARY? What of that?

    This whole thing stinks and for any supporter of Senator Bennet to call out Romanoffs’ people for hostility and turning a campaign negative is hypocisy of the highest order. You are not helping your candidate with this divisive bullshit.

    Last time I checked, primaries were a perfectly legitimate way for candidates for the same office to compete for the job. I know both candidates, and they are both good men and they will both work their hearts out for their party and for the people of Colorado. I happen to support Andrew because I have worked with him in the legislature while he was Speaker and he is, in my opinion, the best legislator I have ever met.

    I will not, however, allow my support for Andrew to evolve into criticism of Michael. Senator Bennet is a good man, trying to do a good job. Stirring up shit and then pretending that you care about the Democratic party is a joke. Both of our candidates for Senate deserve better behavior from their supporters.

    I have heard neither candidate go negative in this campaign. Why don’t you and every other shill on this blog take a cue from the candidates and keep the negative crapola to yourself. If you would like to tell me why Bennet is and will be a better senator for Colorado…I’m listening. Otherwise, you have no more credibility with me than has Glenn Beck.

    OK…rant concluded. Thanks for reading.  

    1. Everyone takes sides in a primary. It’s ridiculous to call out lower level party officials like this. They’re not endorsing through the capacity of their offices, but rather from their own personal perspective.

      Dan Slater’s e-mail was intelligent and thoughtful. Just like Barack Obama’s speech when he came to stump for Bennet.

  4. did we hear no admonition from you regarding the President of the United States coming to Colorado to Campaign for Michael Bennet? … Or the Governor and any number of Democratic elected officials who have taken sides IN A PRIMARY? What of that?

    Each member of the party and each officer has to interpret these rules for himself or herself. The President of the United States is not a state party officer. That example is ridiculous, by the way.

    I am not comfortable using my party status to persuade people to support my candidate –there are many other reasons to do so. Apparently, Dan does not see it that way, although he is at a much higher office than I am. That is his perogative.  I don’t condone or condemn anyone for their interpretaton of party rules — that is between them and the party rule-keepers, as I have already made abundantly clear. (Why did you force me to repeat that?)

    1. Peacemonger: can you please reply to comments using the Reply button rather than starting a new thread? You’ve done this a few times, and it makes reading conversations between you and others difficult. Thanks.

        1. But here for example you’re clearly replying to dukeco1, yet your post doesn’t appear indented underneath his/hers. Obviously I can’t say what you’re doing wrong, but it looks as though you sometimes use “Post a Comment” at the bottom and sometimes reply to your own posts, in addition to sometimes replying to commenters the traditional/expected way. I’m just hoping you could be more consistent about it. Not trying to start trouble, just trying to be helpful.

    2. …just by the mere fact that you say you’re a lower-level party officer than Slater.  

      Seriously, all this BS you stir up must be giving you health problems by now.  Just work for your candidate and let it go already.

      1. You have been extremely nasty for many posts on many days. Your fake concern for anyone is not believable. Seriously — please, go away.

    3. 1.

      Stirring up shit

      Did you read Dan Slater’s blog diary?  It was pretty offensive to Senator Bennet and his supporters, saying that Bennet was disrespectful and “thumbing his nose at the state Democratic party”. That kind of attack warranted a response.  Sorry if you don’t agree.

      2.

      they are both good men and they will both work their hearts out for their party and for the people of Colorado.

      We agree they are both candidates. I never said otherwise. For you to suggest I did shows you are not paying attention.

      3.

      pretending that you care about the Democratic party is a joke.

      You are wrong to accuse me of not caring about the party. I do. Period.

      4.  

      I have heard neither candidate go negative in this campaign.

      If you don’t think Romanoff’s campaign has been unnecessarily negative, you are probably not getting their emails.

  5. Didn’t you say that you would rather vote for Mike Coffman than Andrew Romanoff? Of course, I am sure you realize that Coffman isn’t running for Senate, but it was an interesting comment in any case.

          1. It was on Facebook. If I did, it would out Peacemonger. Of course, the Facebook comment was on a picture you took, so I know you probably saw the same comment.

  6. Peacemonger: I applaud the work of the Obama campaign in getting Barack Obama elected (including winning Colorado for him), but it’s pretty damn insulting that you insinuate that those of us who have been turning Colorado blue for years weren’t up to the job.

    We turned Colorado blue in 2004 when we retook the statehouse and Senate (that would be in large part due to Andrew Romanoff).  We turned Colorado blue when we took the majority of the Colorado Congressional delegation.  We turned Colorado blue when we elected Bill Ritter.

    It’s true that Colorado didn’t go for Kerry in 2004, but that’s in large part because of how terrible the Kerry campaign was run — clearly us lowly Colorado activists knew how to run campaigns — we won everything at the state level — the races we were able to have leadership roles in.

    So sorry a lot of don’t feel that we had to wait for the great OFA to come along and save us from ourselves — we seemed to be doing fine on our own.

    1. I am sorry I offended you. The state party officers and activists did an amazing job in all of the areas you mentioned.  

      What I was referring to was turning blue on a federal level, not a state level. This was the first time we elected a Democratic president and two Democratic Senators at the same time, in addition to 7 of our House seats being blue. That feat required more than just state party activists — that required registering tens of thousands of new voters through MoveOn, the Campaign for Change, and dozens of other Democratic groups and individuals pouring into the state from all over the country to help us. I don’t think(and didn’t say) OFA delivered the goods alone. I think it was a team effort among MANY players.

      We are probably not going to have anywhere near as much support from new voters, Obama Dems, outside states, and progressive groups in 2010, and I think it means we might go red again. I hope not, but I think we need to be realistic. This is not a blue state, but a Barney purple one. A shift in the wind could put us on either side of the dividing line. I think it is very realistic to consider the uniqueness of the Obama revolution, with the turn-out of an off-year election, and know we have a HUGE challenge ahead of us to elect Democrats.

      JMHO.

      2. I’m one, too. I never said otherwise, nor implied it. I just think we need to acknowledge there were many hands involved in the successes of 2008 — not just state party leaders in CO.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

201 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!