President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

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
October 19, 2009 08:11 PM UTC

Slater Pulls Out of Race for Attorney General

  • 45 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Well, so much for that.

Democrat Dan Slater is pulling out of the race for Attorney General after just a few weeks campaigning, writing to supporters that he just didn’t have the fire to run a statewide race.

Full announcement after the jump.  

This is the second time I’ve run for elective office.  I’ve counseled numerous candidates on what they need to know and do to be effective candidates.  I’ve been to some of the best political trainings in the nation.  So I know what it takes to be a winning candidate in a tough race.

And, after just two and a half weeks of this race, something has become all too clear:  I don’t have it.

In 2002, I had it.  I had a “fire in the belly” that could only be quenched by knocking on doors, by dialing for dollars, and by talking to groups, winning votes one person at a time.  It was my top priority — winning that state senate seat.  It was exciting.  It was invigorating.  It was such a high — from the very first day until that election night when I delivered a concession speech.  

Those feelings are feelings I just don’t have this year. I thought I’d have them.  I thought I’d be burning up the phone lines raising money.

I could definitely fake it.  I could keep going, putting on a good face.  And if I truly were the “sacrificial lamb” candidate many have alleged, I would probably do that.  But I truly think John Suthers has done a horrible job as Attorney General, and we Democrats have a clear opening to beat him in 2010.  I just don’t think I have what it takes to do it.

I recognize that this “in and out” campaign will certainly open me up to ridicule.  That’s fine.  I’m just not ready to put my family, and my finances, under the strain that a 13-month statewide campaign would mean.  I spent the last several days with my kids in Oklahoma.  I want to spend the majority of Christmas break and Spring Break, and next summer with them, not out on the campaign trail.  And I also don’t want to miss our twins’ soccer games and school functions and key moments just because I need to be out talking to voters.  At one point in my life, I was willing to make that sacrifice.  In looking at how I feel this year, I don’t think I can make that sacrifice for this election cycle.

Finally, my work as First Vice Chair of the Colorado Democratic Party — a role I take very seriously — was suffering from the campaign.  I have been the chair of the 2010 Site Selection Committee, yet this campaign forced me to drop the ball at a critical time in the site selection process.  Thankfully, we have a great committee who — under the leadership of El Paso County Chair Jason DeGroot, who assumed a leadership position without any warning — did a site visit yesterday, and should have a recommendation next weekend for the State Executive Committee.  But my putting Jason in the position where he had to lead the committee is inexcusable.  You should expect better from you State First Vice Chair, and I expect better from myself.  So I will spend the next 12 and a half months working as your Vice Chair and speaking out when things need to be said.

So that’s it.  I won’t be a candidate for Attorney General — or anything else, for that matter — in 2010.  I greatly appreciate the hundreds of you out there who offered your support, both morally and financially, to start this campaign.  In the end, we made just enough money to pay most of the campaign’s initial expenses.  So for those of you who contributed, I thank you for your vote of confidence, and I’m just sorry I let you down.

I’ll still post to DemNotes and I’ll still fight for our Party.  See you on the trail!

Tweet
Share

Comments

45 thoughts on “Slater Pulls Out of Race for Attorney General”

      2. I deeply appreciate Senator Carroll’s work in trying to address the state’s sky-rocketing prison spending

        I would hate to lose her voice in the Senate – certainly, I’m endorsing Jon Suthers no matter what as he’s doing a terrific job, but it’s important to note that Senator Carroll is such an honorable opponent – she has convictions and we (as Republicans) know where she stands – that counts a lot in my political books

  4. It would have nice to see someone at least start the conversation about the rights of consumers, Dan would have done that.

    The amount of financial fraud that occurs in this state shocks the conscience.  Not much has been done about it, perhaps the legislature can do what the AGs office hasn’t.  

    1. By IAN TALLEY

      WASHINGTON — The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said it was the victim of fraud Monday after a group claiming to represent the organization said it had switched its position on climate change.

      Chamber of Commerce spokesman Eric Wohlschlegel said a group using a chamber emblem held a news briefing at the National Press Club, stating that the Chamber now believed the science of climate change.

      Mr. Wohlschlegel said the Chamber hasn’t questioned the science of climate change, but rather some of the policies that Democrat leaders are pursuing to cut greenhouse gases.

      The fraudulent meeting was reported as news by several new organizations, including Reuters and CNBC.

      for you wambulance victims the sources are wsj and nasa

      Though greenhouse gases are invariably at the center of discussions about global climate change, new NASA research suggests that much of the atmospheric warming observed in the Arctic since 1976 may be due to changes in tiny airborne particles called aerosols.

      Emitted by natural and human sources, aerosols can directly influence climate by reflecting or absorbing the sun’s radiation. The small particles also affect climate indirectly by seeding clouds and changing cloud properties, such as reflectivity.

      A new study, led by climate scientist Drew Shindell of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, used a coupled ocean-atmosphere model to investigate how sensitive different regional climates are to changes in levels of carbon dioxide, ozone, and aerosols.

      [snip]

      Though there are several varieties of aerosols, previous research has shown that two types — sulfates and black carbon — play an especially critical role in regulating climate change. Both are products of human activity.

      Sulfates, which come primarily from the burning of coal and oil, scatter incoming solar radiation and have a net cooling effect on climate. Over the past three decades, the United States and European countries have passed a series of laws that have reduced sulfate emissions by 50 percent. While improving air quality and aiding public health, the result has been less atmospheric cooling from sulfates.

      At the same time, black carbon emissions have steadily risen, largely because of increasing emissions from Asia. Black carbon — small, soot-like particles produced by industrial processes and the combustion of diesel and biofuels — absorb incoming solar radiation and have a strong warming influence on the atmosphere.

      [snip]

      “There’s a tendency to think of aerosols as small players, but they’re not,” said Shindell. “Right now, in the mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere and in the Arctic, the impact of aerosols is just as strong as that of the greenhouse gases.”

      The growing recognition that aerosols may play a larger climate role can have implications for policymakers.

      “We will have very little leverage over climate in the next couple of decades if we’re just looking at carbon dioxide,” Shindell said. “If we want to try to stop the Arctic summer sea ice from melting completely over the next few decades, we’re much better off looking at aerosols and ozone.”

      Aerosols tend to be quite-short lived, residing in the atmosphere for just a few days or weeks. Greenhouses gases, by contrast, can persist for hundreds of years. Atmospheric chemists theorize that the climate system may be more responsive to changes in aerosol levels over the next few decades than to changes in greenhouse gas levels, which will have the more powerful effect in coming centuries.

      “This is an important model study, raising lots of great questions that will need to be investigated with field research,” said Loretta Mickley, an atmospheric chemist from Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. who was not directly involved in the research. Understanding how aerosols behave in the atmosphere is still very much a work-in-progress, she noted, and every model needs to be compared rigorously to real life observations. But the science behind Shindell’s results should be taken seriously.

      “It appears that aerosols have quite a powerful effect on climate, but there’s still a lot more that we need to sort out,” said Shindell.

      NASA’s upcoming Glory satellite is designed to enhance our current aerosol measurement capabilities to help scientists reduce uncertainties about aerosols by measuring the distribution and microphysical properties of the particles.

      1. I read about the Chamber spoof.  Not fraud (wasn’t done for pecuniary gain), but very sleazy.

        As to the second post.  What are you talking about?

        Given your history attributing quotes to others, post links.

        1. who agree with the Real U.S. Chamber that a rush to fraudulent policies without real science is a mistake we can’t afford to make.

          as to source, this is from Adam Voiland on NASA’s Earth Science News Team

          Sulfates, which come primarily from the burning of coal and oil, scatter incoming solar radiation and have a net cooling effect on climate. Over the past three decades, the United States and European countries have passed a series of laws that have reduced sulfate emissions by 50 percent. While improving air quality and aiding public health, the result has been less atmospheric cooling from sulfates.

      2. You don’t understand the first thing about this science or its significance in the global warming debate.

        Just one example:

        CO2 started rapidly increasing with the industrial revolution. Temperatures also started warming rapidly (the hockey stick). Now, when were sulfates regulated? Much later, right? Yet somehow temps started climbing much earlier. Please explain.  

      3. This is nothing new, perhaps this is why you didn’t include a link, L?

        It’s long been known that aerosols, especially those like sulfates, have a cooling effect. And the effects of cleaning up these pollutants have resulted in the current dominant influence of CO2 and other radiatively active gases (i.e., “greenhouse gases”).

        Indeed, this is the source of the “planetary cooling” hysteria in the MSM from the 70’s that the deniers trot out every few months or so.

        Read this if you are interested (note the publication date is not real current):

        Rasool, S.I. & S.H. Schneider. 1971. Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate. Science 173(3992):138-141

        In the paper, Rasool & Schneider assumed aerosol pollution rates would continue to increase (and thus lead to some cooling). However, they looked at climate sensitivity and concluded that if aerosols were reduced and CO2 continued to increase, then there would be global warming (about 2deg/century). Enter the Clean Air Act, and their second prediction has been borne out.

          1. This thread is about Attorney General.

            I realize that doesn’t mean jack shit in your random stream-of-conciousness way of thinking, if indeed you actually think, but that’s what it’s about.

              1. As was obvious, this is (always) about ideology with you. I foolishly hoped you were interested in evidence.

                It is also obvious you aren’t experiencing doubt. Deniers never do.

                FYI: Cogito, ergo sum sometimes misquoted as Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum …

                1. I do not deny that we experience climate change.  Climate change has occurred since the begining of time (some say 5,000 years ago, so say 500 million).  If you doubt it, just run up I-70 and go hiking.

                  However, unlike you an enviro bed wetter, I accept this and don’t claim that some government mandate on light bulbs or whatever will change it.

                  go to http://www.nasa.gov/topics/ear…

                  Though there are several varieties of aerosols, previous research has shown that two types — sulfates and black carbon — play an especially critical role in regulating climate change. Both are products of human activity.

                  Sulfates, which come primarily from the burning of coal and oil, scatter incoming solar radiation and have a net cooling effect on climate. Over the past three decades, the United States and European countries have passed a series of laws that have reduced sulfate emissions by 50 percent. While improving air quality and aiding public health, the result has been less atmospheric cooling from sulfates.

                  – NASA

                  1. But, like with everything else, you suck at this too.

                    I have no doubt that you are a denier.

                    Is that your mom calling? Too bad. Maybe you’ll be allowed to play online again tomorrow.

                    Toodles!

    1. She’d be nuts to run for AG unless it’s to build name recognition for a run in 2014.

      I do wonder why Dan decided to run for this seat when his heart clearly wasn’t into it.

      I wonder if he’ll ever really divulge his reasons for it. (I suspect it’s because the State Party doesn’t want Suthers running unopposed and no one else is interested in stepping up and taking one for the team this year so Dan offered himself up as the sacrificial lamb and then found the prospect so unappealing he bowed out. And yes, I am totally speculating without one iota of fact to base this on.)

  8. He was a joke a few years back in a State Senate run also…not exactly the best face the D’s could be putting out.  He would have only embarrassed the D’s.  Wise choice to pull out.  

  10. Why didn’t he think it through (for, say, 2.5 weeks at least) before publicly entering the race?  He’s made himself look ridiculous.  “My campaign for AG was interfering with my very important job as first vice chair of the party”????  What nonsense is that?!!

  11. Both for starting a run and even more for realizing your heart wasn’t it.  

    Pay no attention to the naysayers–at least you gave it a shot!  

  12. I fully understand the loss of “fire in the belly”. I never realized how much I would enjoy not having it until it was gone 😉

    You are a true warrior within our party and do much to keep the focus where it needs to be.

    Thanks for all you do for all for us!

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

35 readers online now

Newsletter

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