U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Michael Bennet
50%
50%
50%
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) Brian Mason
60%↑
30%↑
20%↓
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%↑
30%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
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) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
November 19, 2009 06:55 PM UTC
33 Comments
I don’t remember this outrage when racist quotes were made up and attributed to Limbaugh. And posted on this blog.
it dosen’t absolve him of all of his correctly attibuted racist quotes from before.
Boo hoo. Rush is still a racist, so why would there be such outrage ? Is Rush a guy who worked so hard for racial harmony that was unjustly maligned ? Is he going to need grief counseling ? The horror.
Limbaugh has expressed horrendous views. His inability to buy a football team should give some credence to his insensitivity. The NFL would never approve it.
Which FDN points out nicely.
This is clearly an attempt by Malkin to further polarize people on the issue of health car,e by trying to play the tried and true “secular liberal hates all Christians” card.
Perhaps Malkin’s next move will be to try to block Rep. DeGette’s annual war on Christmas. Tis the season after all.
I’m sure you’ll answer me with “mwah” or something equally infantile, but which Limbaugh quote that the Guvs have posted is wrong? I guess I’d prefer to not use it if it is, so I’m asking legitimately.
Mwah!
The slavery one and the James Earl Wray were both false.
It apparently came out during the recent flap over Limbaugh buying into an NFL team (we just looked into this) that the James Earl Ray quote is indeed false–after it was repeated by many news outlets. We used this quote for our January 30th open thread. We won’t defend it, it’s now known to be a bad quote and we have removed it.
We haven’t found where we used the other one, though we’ve found many other places on the internet complaining about both of these quotes together. Perhaps that’s where you saw it.
I hadn’t seen the slavery one here – I was just trying to help my new BFF out.
is virtually guaranteed to be an improvement, since there’s nowhere to go but up.
The thing is, Malkin handled everything fairly at first because she had every reason to believe the quote was accurate. All she had to do was blame the source and back off her initial post.
Instead she basically says she prefers the made up quote so she can run with her umbrage – even though she now knows it has no basis in truth.
I think that speaks to Malkin’s integrity (none) and motivations (wreak havoc) very clearly.
When people blatantly and maliciously misquote a person damaging that person’s reputation, shouldn’t there be some consequences. Why would Rep. DeGette not have a libel case here?
People like Michelle Malkin are poor human beings and are bad for this country. Throw her in the category of Rush and Sean, and countless others. They only have one interest at heart – their own pockets. They intentionally mislead the public in an effort not to change the system in any way, but to simply get more attention.
.
working on the theory that she could be considered a public figure.
So, she says she’s solicitous of the Catholic Bishops on how their views on abortion should translate into law, and you believe her ?
What about her track record, which actually is pretty consistent with what is now being called a misquote ?
.
She’s not saying she personally is open to their views on abortion. What she is saying is that members of the Catholic Church are a large constituency and, therefore, their concerns should be heard.
Furthermore, she is saying that as leaders of a non-profit organization that receives tax exemptions as a religious establishment, the Bishops should not be helping write ANY legislation.
There is a huge difference between a Bishop expressing his concerns to his congressman, and actively lobbying all of congress about what should be included in the bill.
It’s just too bad that no one has the guts to take away the Church’s tax status.
Is it right that simply because you are a public figure anyone can maliciously misrepresent your character no matter how damaging?
Rep. DeGette has never said she is against the Catholic Church. Only that she disagrees with their stance on abortion. There is much more to this world than the abortion issue.
of the Catholic Church in the United States don’t agree with the church’s position on abortion and birth control….does that mean that they are against the Catholic Church?
public figures don’t press for libel and slander because they have the means to respond to the misquotes and claims through the media. Private individuals don’t have the media access public figures do.
That is quite an assumption to make. And why should any individual, public or private, be treated differently than another under the law.
Where is the deterrent to prevent such slanderous actions from occurring. Especially when political gains can be made from it. Or even worse, when profit can be made from it.
as a tool to suppress information that is critical to them. An unsavory politician might not want the public to know certain things about his behavior and could threaten to sue to suppress the story. The press hasn’t covered itself with glory lately but it is understood that public officials can’t intimidate the press with threats of lawsuits.
In such a case, couldn’t the press have a counter-claim for a frivolous lawsuit? And how is that different than any other individual? Anyone can threaten to sue.
I still see no legal reason why some individuals are given more protection by the law than others.
The media must be held accountable for intentionally spreading lies about individuals in an attempt to ruin that person’s reputation. When it comes to politics, one scandelous rumor, even if completely false, can ruin a career.
And so you’d encourage Rush to sue for libel?
The original misquote is nothing like the corrected quote. Mike O’Brien can’t possibly have “misheard” the latter as the former.
First quote: “I’ve got to say that I think the Catholic bishops and all of the other groups shouldn’t have input.”
Corrected quote: “I gotta tell you, last I heard there was separation of church and state in this country. I don’t think the Catholic bishops are in charge of writing our health care bill. I think they’re one of many groups we should be listening to”
Since he made the correction, I presume that the corrected quote is the accurate one. But he needs a better story than “misheard” because that doesn’t fly.
The right wing, which contrary to misconception controls by far the majority of the media, doesn’t believe in journalistic ethics anymore.
Michelle Malkin…she’s full of wrong information and she’s so hard nosed on stuff. Blah.
She is unabashedly pro-women and the extremists on the right want to do everything possible to frame her as an out of the mainstream leftest extremists.
It’s kind of funny that extremists are calling her an extremist and because she is an extremist her views aren’t valid.
You would think that there would be actual footage of the interview that could be brought out to determine her exact sentence. How tough would that be. When Fox got caught swapping tape for the DC teabag rally, Hannity said it was inadvertent and everyone accepted his explanation. I wonder why Malkin doesn’t accept this reporters misquote as inadvertent also?
but I still can’t bring myself to defend DeGette. next!
I did it for Tancredo. To the extent of being labeled a right wing troll.
Have you ever sworn at DeGette? How about in public? Loudly, with your finger in her chest (not recommending that, I’d be sad if you were charged with something)?
Suck it up, Ms. Facts.
I myself ain’t that strong. I couldn’t bear to be called a troll, regardless of wing. Hits too close to home, ya know. Still, I can promise not to place my hands anywhere near a congresswoman’s chest (or man’s). For now.
Always trumpeting how well he plays by the rules and how everyone else owes him an apology because he’s the victim.
Typical behavior with little merit.
Dan Savage might slap you. Failing that, my backhand is free.
I’m unfamiliar with the term. Is it suppose to be an insult?
As far as getting the back of your hand, I didn’t know that iPhones can now send tactile messages. That’s OK. My skin is so old and wrinkled that you’re hand will probably to get caught in the folds like Brer Rabbit in the tar patch. Having a thick skin has its advantages.
“GGG stands for ‘good, giving, and game,’ which is what we should all strive to be for our sex partners. Think ‘good in bed,’ ‘giving equal time and equal pleasure,’ and ‘game for anything-within reason.'”
Not that you and droll are in a sexual relationship (although with all the anonymity around here, who can tell anymore?).
What the hell does that have to do with it? DeGette was misquoted. The correction was put out. Malkin is being nasty, as usual. This is about accepting facts about DeGette, not about defending DeGette.