U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) David Seligman
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) J. Danielson
(R) Sheri Davis
50%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
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*
(R) H. Scheppelman
(D) Alex Kelloff
70%
30%
10%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Trisha Calvarese
(D) Eileen Laubacher
90%
20%
20%
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) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Shannon Bird
45%↓
30%
30%
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
December 18, 2009 06:16 PM UTC
37 Comments
If we scrap this bill because it sucks, many bad things will happen.
Just to describe one – it will not be a do over in 2010. It will be at least four years before we get to try again, and more likely 12.
OTOH, if we pass this now, it can come back year after year to be altered, improved and or killed.
The Senate should pass whatever they can and fix the bill in conference committee. I expect that is where we will see the full force of Barack Obama. If Lieberman and the Repugnicants want to filibuster a true health insurance reform bill, then make them shut down the government. How did that work for Newt Gingrich?
BTW – Senator Michael Bennet has been telling us since the summer that the conference committee is where the real bill was going to be forged. Thank you again, Senator Bennet.
The extreme left of our party won’t like it.
Then again, they don’t like the fact that their hero is more to the right than Sen Bennet.
Some people can’t handle the truth
I actually agree with the basic premise of this diary, but I think it’s a bad strategy to go about achieving what is otherwise a noble goal.
Hedging our bets right now could prove incredibly risky. As much as I am mad at the Democratic Party, I would hate to go back to Republicans being in charge. Or worse, getting the Congress back next year and being even more obstructionist than they’re already being.
As much as I want to punish the Democratic leadership from the top down for totally getting health care wrong from the beginning, I am much more confident with them than I was with President Bush’s regime. I am much more confident in them than I would have been in a John McCain administration.
I guess what it comes down to, for me anyway, is that there are other issues that we need to address right now–namely jobs.
If it passes, then we can fix the problems legislatively later. It’s not the best fix, but it’s something. If it doesn’t pass, then we move on to getting the economy back on track, and getting the country where it needs to be economically again.
But I don’t think we should hedge our bets, and I think doing so would mean Republican rule for a long time.
From the WSJ:
Note to Rahm: There are lots of liberals left on the hustings. We turned out last year; we ain’t turnin’ out next year if this bill passes. Promise. And we ain’t even heard yet what you have to say about financial services reform.
Just as the Tea Party, and to a lesser degree, other clusters are splintering the R party, we splinter the D party too.
As bad as it is I am optimistic that we will see changes to the legislation in the future. I am also optimistic for another reason – the America people. They are coming out of the wood work to support healthcare reform and a million dollars was raised by MoveOn.org to fight Joe Lieberman on this issue and his reelection. I doubt very much if he will ever be elected to another political office again. Similar efforts are under way for other Democrats like Senators Nelson, Lincoln and Bennet. Why because big business and with their special interests have awakened a sleeping giant, the America people and we are finally engaged in the conversation.
I hear people say they won’t vote for a Democrat again but I think they will just not for the incumbents who are in the pockets of banks, insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies. Change won’t happen over night but what I am seeing is a public fed up with the handouts, fed up with anticompetitive behavior and fed up with incumbents. This is not about Obama or the majority held by the Democratic Senators and Representatives of the House, this is about us and we will force change perhaps not today or tomorrow but it will happen and it is for that reason that I support this legislation as bad as it is.
One of these things doesn’t belong.
Sharon, I get it that you hate Bennet because he made a lot of money a decade ago. But slipping his name in with health care reform obstructionists is childish. Grow up.
You don’t get to define my perception of the appointed one Senator Bennet. In my opinion he will sell out his constituents in a heartbeat with or without health insurance.
You are however entitled to your opinion.
But not your own facts, and to include Bennet with Leiberman, Lincoln and Nelson in a litany about obstructing health care reform is absolutely contrary to the facts.
I believe Bennet is reluctantly voting the right way on HCR but he has not nor will he vote for banking reform. Last I checked we desperately needed both.
You have a tendency to forget what you write:
You’re welcome. I’m just here to help.
But let me recap for you anyway. Bennet weakly supported HCR and weakly supported the public option before AR got into the race at which time he strongly supported HCR. At this point Bennet does not have my trust for HCR or banking reform. He knows he has to support HCR or he would not be viable as a Democratic candidate. In my opinion it is the only reason he came out in support of the Public Option.
And speaking of facts he IS being challenged last I checked.
You claim in the same sentence that Lieberman has been targeted by MoveOn for his opposition to health care reform and in that same paragraph you claim that “similar efforts” are under way to unseat Bennet.
Really? What major progressive organization or 527 is currently targeting Bennet for his stance on health care and his very public support for the public option since late last spring? Please be specific and provide links.
Oh and by the way, you claim MoveOn raised a $1 million to fight Lieberman on his re-election because of his stance on healthcare. Wrong again. This issue was not front and center in 2006. They fought his re-election but not for the reason you are stating. They fought him because of his stance on the Iraq War and his close ties to George W. Bush.
The opposite is true. Far from being a target, as we discussed in another thread, Bennet is the top recipient in the country, out of everyone in Congress or running for Congress this cycle, of what opensecrets calls “Democratic/Progressive Groups.”
Sharon, these may be inconvenient facts in your universe, but that doesn’t mean you get to pretend the reverse is true.
is “fabrication.”
It’s too bad that you can’t shut me up. Perhaps you should own your tea bagger, death panel and sock puppet political tactics because the truth will set you free. And that truth is Bennet has taken PAC money from banks and Wall Street and then either hinted he would vote against legislation that would regulate them or voted against actual legislation that he believed would harm his paymasters. The result is his vote on the cram-down hurt Main Street.
…reading ‘Bizarro-Libertad’.
You seem to have wandered off there.
I’m still waiting for you to explain your little “fabrication” from above and I’ll just keep copying and pasting it until you either apologize and offer proof.
Why would I want to shut you up? You’re so much fun and for anyone supporting Bennet, you’re a gift from heaven.
I’m waiting breathlessly for your proof.
There is an intense effort underway in Colorado to defeat Bennet in the forthcoming primary. You may or may not like it, you may or may not like the alternative candidate, but the effort is underway.
Bit surprised you’re not aware of it.
Even got a candidate, name of Romanoff, whom you may or may not think is an ideal opponent, but he’s in the race.
(If you’re still holding your breath, well, that’s okay by me too.)
Learn to read and perhaps it will help your ballot stuffing efforts in the future when you learn how to tell time.
Here was Sharon’s assertion:
And here’s me asking for proof. It’s something we in the reality based community insist on. Feel free to join us someday.
Proof, you say? What is yours? What does your allegation even consist of? Were any rules violated? Did ColoradoPols allege any breaking of rules? How would you know anything about who voted for whom? IF you had any evidence whatsoever, then you–and/or ColoradoPols–must be in a position to determine which user voted for whom. Which in turn leads to the real prospect of “stuffing” ballots (or stopping the count at a convenient moment, which is what in fact happened).
I will say that there is no single other participant in this site who does more to drag down the level of discussion than Middle of the Road. Unable to argue the principles, or to dispute ideas in any meaningful way, you consistently resort to personal insults. Proof of that? Well, let’s start with your recent “go fuck yourself” sign-off line and the subsequent discussion that engendered.
Even here, I present the most obvious and undeniable example of an effort to defeat Bennet,, which was the allegation, and you simply turn to another subject, repeat your demand for “proof” without denying what’s obvious, all without ever speaking to the point. (The question of “intense” is purely one of perception or judgment, unless someone has an Intensity Meter turned on; if there is such a person, it won’t be Middle of the Road.)
“We in the reality based community” I take it is your effort to cloak yourself in some superior robes, whereas in your cast it refers to someone who has no thoughts or observations of her own, no viewpoint that can’t be expressed in cliches–or by use of the word “fuck,” which is the reality of Middle of the Road, QED.
The polls closed at the time Pols announced they would close when voting started.
Are you really this much of a sore loser or is this an extended joke?
(snicker, my God, I hope I make it through this comment without laughing so hard I throw up) to inform you that I’m done replying to you for awhile so do have a great one and see you around the Pols.
Promise?
No doubt you have all the makings of a great editor for this site. And no, I didn’t see where “triguardian” was “outed,” whereas I did see more than one poster nominate me. I thought “outing” anonymous posters was grounds for banning on this site. Certainly I never read ColoradoPols refer to “triguardian” by any other name.
HOW ABOUT IT COLORADO POLS? IS “OUTING” ACCEPTABLE NOW? THAT WILL CERTAINLY BE OF INTEREST TO ANY NUMBER OF ANONYMOUS POSTERS WHEN A DESIGNATED “EDITOR” IS ALLOWED TO DO SO!
For the record, I have no knowledge of triguardian, nor of anything he/she may have done in regard to anything, including anyone’s campaign. I did read that triguardian’s sockpuppets were eliminated by ColoradoPols–didn’t I?–and so were not an element in the voting.
Your humor is on the mark as always.
I agree that both the strategy and the debate were badly managed. Health care should be a right.
I’m not happy that this bill may just be another boon for the insurance companies. But I think that will be at worst, a short term issue that will get fixed sooner rather than later.
But at this point, I’m certain that if we let the 40 naysayers win this one, the “Red Menace” will simply feel more empowered and emboldened. The Senate will be hopelessly gridlocked and Reid will be even less able to manage his 58 + 2 caucus.
Nor will we get a chance to piecemeal this through in the next couple of years. Losing this particular battle will imprint the image of a weak majority onto the electorate and will not easily be overcome.
It is clear to me that for the next year, we’ve got to keep the 60 members that cover the broad political spectrum together as an effective governing body. Yes, that means a ConservaDem agenda for the most part. The other 40 placeholders are unlikely to come around on any issue, short of a complete collapse of the GOP.
For 2010, I think two things will happen:
1. Dems may lose a seat or two
2. Tea Partiers will cost the GOP a seat or two (maybe more)
Net result — post-2010, we’ll still be at 60 and we’ll have 2 more years of hardball politics to muscle through any bills we can. I really think the GOP will splinter to some degree as a result of the 2010 elections.
Since only 60 members of the Senate are available for the task of actual governance, we must hold it together until 2012. The alternative is too gastly to consider.
Some points of disagreement:
1. Is the existing health care status quo bill an advance at all? Yes, it requires everyone to pay for private health insurance; it provides some tax incentives to help some of them. But does it move at all in the direction of health care as a right? Or does it entrench private health insurance as an obligation? Is changing that a “fix”?
2. IF preexisting conditions can be covered…but with unregulated charges…how does charging $25,000 per month for a policy (made-up number) even begin to address that issue?
3. Doesn’t this bill further entrench policies like re-importation of drugs that require Americans to pay a multiple for medication sold as close as Canada for much, much less? Is changing this a “fix” or an “improvement” when it wasn’t touched at all in this bill?
IF someone could say: Well, this bill establishes a new right for some people (the way Social Security covered some workers at first, and more later on), then maybe an argument could be made. I don’t see how this bill establishes any beachhead at all!
Maybe I’m missing what’s new and wonderful here. Could you point it out?
This bill could so disgust some Democrats that it will cost Democrats more seats than you think. IF voters don’t see any meaningful difference between the Republican and the Democrat, in terms of actual legislation forthcoming, why should those voters bother? BUT even if you could argue the case, will you succeed? Obama raised lots of hopes; this bill helps dash some of them. Disappointment after high hopes creates a mighty high barrier for a candidate or his party the next time ’round!
Notice in my original post, I did not defend the bill, nor assert that it would do any of the things you take exception with. In fact I tend to agree with your objections as well.
My point was simply that if it fails to pass, we (both as a party and generally as a nation) would suffer at least 3 years of national paralysis (if not more) and rewards the obstructionist tactics currently employed by the GOP.
However flawed, if it passes, we’ll have a stronger hand to play for the next few years.
Both parties are being tarnished in this battle, but the stakes for the loser are especially high.
My point is that we must win this battle if we are to demonstrate the ability to effectively govern, turn the economy around and wind down the wars in AFPAK.
That’s the goal I don’t want us to lose sight of in the arguments over what the bill does or does not do.
But I’m not at all confident that passing this bill does or does not buttress the reputation of the party for effectively governing. I’d find it a lot easier to argue that the bill as it stands represents a failure to govern effectively in the face of both unconscionable Republican opposition to any and all legislation, and the antics of L’man and that guy from Nebraska who are nominally in the D caucus. How it will emerge in the minds of the electorate at large will be, I suppose, a major propaganda battle of 2010.
I’d put the Copenhagen summit in the same category. Obama claims victory. Was it? Will it be seen as such? I found myself frowning not at his obvious failure to reach a comprehensive agreement to replace Kyoto, but at his claim to have done something akin to that.
Turns out Obama’s first mid-term election will be almost as interesting as his election!
Does this say something, or not say something? Or not “at all” say something? Or not “at all” not say something?
and stay bogged down on a single issue all year then we will get hammered in November.
I say take what we can get and move on.
It can always be revisited.
Now you will have another set of citizens who will be enraged at the legislators passing a bill that makes it harder on the former middle class who are working two jobs, losing their homes and spending a ton of money on their health so that insurance companies can enhance their profits at the expense of sick people. Quid pro quo no matter what it is called and no matter how legal is out in the open now. And for all its past glory it is becoming the bane of the American people. And this newly festering irritant will go after incumbents, Bennet included.
Are you referring to your self as a “festering irritant”?
You know, sort of like- this citizen just can’t stand this bill referring to the writer.
And I thought you wanted federal legislation and regulation. This post sounds like the Tea Party rants about “fire congress” and “vote against all incumbents.” I never understood how that would help.