U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(D) Julie Gonzales

(R) Janak Joshi

80%

40%

20%

(D) Michael Bennet

(D) Phil Weiser
55%

50%↑
Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) Jena Griswold

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Hetal Doshi

50%

40%↓

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) J. Danielson

(D) A. Gonzalez
50%↑

20%↓
State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Jeff Bridges

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

50%↑

40%↓

30%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(D) Wanda James

(D) Milat Kiros

80%

20%

10%↓

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Alex Kelloff

(R) H. Scheppelman

60%↓

40%↓

30%↑

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

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) E. Laubacher

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

30%↑

20%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Jessica Killin

55%↓

45%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Shannon Bird

(D) Manny Rutinel

45%↓

30%

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
February 06, 2010 09:36 PM UTC

Wow, Really?

  •  
  • by: Colorado Pols

Conservative blogger Ross Kaminsky had the opportunity recently to vapidly genuflect to interview Senate candidate Jane Norton. It’s kind of long, but we wanted to make sure you didn’t miss this insightful passage:

[S]he noted that the word “education” is nowhere in the Constitution and that she has proposed eliminating the federal Department of Education.  I wholly support that proposal, not just because the Dept. of Education is unconstitutional, but also because it is arguably one of the least effective parts of government on a per-dollar basis.

I asked Jane Norton what she thought of the Tea Party movement.  She said that she thought it was perhaps the most exciting political development of her lifetime [Pols emphasis] and that it is exactly what the country needs…

Okay, stop there. Jane Norton, born in 1955, thinks that the “Tea Party” movement is, let’s make sure we’ve got this straight, “the most exciting political development of her lifetime?”

Because during Jane Norton’s lifetime, we’ve had some pretty exciting political developments: there was the civil rights movement, for example–maybe not terribly exciting for Norton, apparently not at all for the “Tea Party” themselves–there will be some disagreement on that one. But what about the election and re-election of Ronald Reagan, fellow Republicans? That wasn’t politically kind of exciting? Or the fall of the USSR? The 1994 Republican Revolution? Clinton’s impeachment? 9/11-inspired electoral triumph in 2002? Just doesn’t seem like a very objective statement, does it?

Don’t get us wrong, we know this is nothing more than a throwaway line, to be thrown away as fast as the “Tea Party” itself will be by Norton as soon as she’s no longer sweating a primary challenge. It just kind of struck us, like “abolishing” the Department of Education, or agreeing that the federal government has “no place” in health care, not to mention that stuff about Obama caring more about “terrorist rights” than Americans…as something Sarah Palin would say.

Comments

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

52 readers online now

Newsletter

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