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

50%↑

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
June 01, 2010 08:24 PM UTC

Garnett Raises $66,000 Last Month

  • 53 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Full press release after the jump, for the one-month period ending May 26, Democratic Attorney General candidate Stan Garnett will report $66,301 raised, with just over $85,000 on hand as of now. We haven’t seen a release from GOP incumbent John Suthers, but Garnett is expected to handily outperform Suthers in this regard all the way through November.

UPDATE: Incumbent John Suthers, who did not see fit to issue a press release, raised $21,075 during the same period–that’s a ratio of 1:3 for those of you keeping score.

Stan Garnett

For Our Attorney General

Tough. Fair. On Your Side.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  

June 1, 2010

MEDIA CONTACT: Charlie Brennan

(720) 383-0133

                 Stan Garnett Posts Latest Fundraising Totals

Attorney General candidate Stan Garnett today announced strong fundraising totals for the first full reporting cycle since entering the race. The one-month reporting period concluding May 26 showed Garnett raising $66,301. Added to the total raised in the previous reporting period, which ended April 26, that brought Garnett’s total raised to date to $100,793.

The Garnett campaign has a cash-on-hand balance as of May 26 of $85,570.

“I’m very happy about where we are at this stage in the race,” Garnett said. “This shows that we’re on track, and that our message is motivating a lot of people to show their support. I’m humbled, particularly, by the number of small individual contributions coming in from across Colorado.”

Garnett, the 20th Judicial District Attorney, received the Democratic Party’s nomination at the party’s May 22nd State Assembly.  In what is likely to be an early highlight of the campaign, he is slated to debate his opponent at 6 p.m., June 2nd, at the DU School of Law. The debate is being moderated by Aaron Harber, host of “Colorado Election 2010,” and will be recorded for repeated broadcast throughout the campaign season.

And, for additional information, contact Charlie Brennan at Charlie.brennan24@gmail.com Also, please visit the campaign website at Garnettforag.com.

Comments

53 thoughts on “Garnett Raises $66,000 Last Month

  1. For a down ballot race that is a lot of dough in a month.  It shows either(both) A) people a pissed at Suthers for politicizing the AG’s office and/or B) Stan is highly respected in the legal community and got them to crack open their wallets.

    1. Look with the thousands of liberal lawyers (trial lawyers to liberal whckjob corporate attorney’s holding a license here in CO) I would have expected much-much more reportable cash.

      I’m sure Stan is a fine man, but lets gete real here. Morgan Carrol wouldn’t jump in the race and probably kicked the crap out of herself for the week that the Post let linger its destruction story of AG Suthers (before the Editorial correction set the record straight).

      Maybe that’s the issue here; the $66k is reflective of the liberal legal communities best use of campaign finance dollars.

      1. editorial, in the “on the other hand” mode favored by the DP, undoes the damage of a week of Willie Horton politics.  The “I am not a crook/serial killer/soft on crime mode is deadly in politics.  Suthers is far from dead,

        but he’s in trouble.  

    2. I suppose that translates to a pace of roughly $200k/quarter.  That’s good for an AG’s race?  I guess so; I’m not familiar with the typical numbers.  It seems that Garnett did much better than Suthers in any event.

      1. Because Marilou thinks the 17th St law firm’s know some ominous “truth [that] will come out” about Garnett, while Libertad blames Garnett’s  solid fundraising number’s on “liberal whckjob corporate attorney’s” who largely work on 17th St.

        Get the looneybin right-wing talking point’s straight, kid’s — is 17th Street (a) Garnett’s crazy liberal lawyer base of support, or (b) the secret source of evil truth’s about Garnett that will save Suthers?  

        Also, Lib: look into how to pluralize noun’s. Twice today you’ve made the third-grade error I’ve made repeatedly in this comment: pluralizing word’s by adding “‘s” at the end of a singular.  Here’s how to pluralize: your grammar gives teachers nightmares.

        1. It’s section 123 – “Health Benefits Advisory Committee”. Now the government can decide what benefits you get. Stop listening to the lib talking points and read the bill yourself.

          1. Insurance companies already have death panels, the Gov is just saying that when people think they have health insurance-they should actually have health insurance.

            Take your own advice–read the bill.  And if you have, I will add another suggestion–understand the bill.

            1. I just did read the bill, or at least search through it. (If you think I’m going to waste a week reading the whole thing you’re crazy.) But the problem is that it is so convoluted and filled with ambiguity that not even lawyers can understand it completely. Could you tell me what an “Elder Justice Coordinating Council” is?

                  1. But the point is the same: the final bill has a similar “there shall be a minimum benefits package” provision, but that is NOT a denial of treatment for anyone, much less the “death panel” you moronically cite because your intellectual leader Sarah Palin tells you to.

              1. The “Elder Justice Coordinating Council”  isn’t even in that bill.  It is a elder rights bill that has been kicking around since 2002 (Obama signed it this year)called the Elder Justice Act and the Patient Safety Abuse Prevention Act.

                http://www.ifa-fiv.org/index.p

                The EJCC purpose

                Elevate elder justice issues to a national attention. Creation of (1) Offices of Elder Justice at the Departments of Health and Human Services and Justice to serve programmatic, grant-making, policy and technical assistance functions relating to elder justice, (2) a public-private and a Coordinating Council to coordinate activities of all relevant federal agencies, States, communities and private and not-for-profit entities and (3) a consistent funding stream and national coordination for Adult Protective Services (APS).

                http://www.nccnhr.org/advocate

                So what are you saying” you hate old people or you love nursing home profits.

                I will ignore you from now on because I don’t debate with the disabled.

                1. because I’m kicking your butt in this debate. It’s obvious you have no idea what is in the bill other than what you hear in the media or on lefty blogs.

                  Here’s the deal: there were multiple versions of the bill, and house and senate bills; only one passed. I was waiting for you to tell me that the “Health Benefits Advisory Committee” was not in the final bill, but you obviously didn’t know that. (It doesn’t matter – that’s what Palin was referring to). The “Elder Justice Coordinating Council” has nothing to do with whatever crap you quoted; it is in the final version of the bill H.R. 3590. The other one was H.R. 3200.

                  1. You’re not kicking anybody’s butt.

                    Gentle hint:  being perceived as delusional because you exhibit delusional behavior doesn’t help win arguments on the ‘net.  Or anyplace else, for that matter.

                    1. weak arguments are a weak form of argument. So I guess I’m good. The fact that a bunch of left-wing lunatics think I’m “delusional” doesn’t bother me in the least. In fact, in confirms that I am sane.

                    2. including which “wing” I’m on, if any.

                      If you think you do, well, then you’re deluding yourself.  

                      Oh wait, that’s delusional behavior.

              2. It’s a key component of their business model. They give out bonuses for finding ways to drop sick people.  What would you call that?  They are all about taking your money as long as you don’t need much in return and cutting you off when you cease to be sufficiently  profitable, no matter how many other profitable clients they have to make up for you. They don’t have to drop those people to be very profitable but very profitable isn’t enough. They want a lot more than “very” and that means cutting off people who start needing the benefits they paid for any way they can.

                They also deny coverage to babies with the nerve to be born with a defect they can cite as a pre-existing condition. Oddly, so called culture of lifers don’t have a problem with innocent babies being barred from access to decent healthcare.  Makes you wonder why they are so determined to stop abortions in the first place.  But that’s another subject.  

                But private insurance is all about death panels or at least its-your-problem-you-can-crawl-away-and-die-for-all-we-care panels. The free market in health insurance has pretty much meant they’re free to screw you and you’re free to get screwed, either by an insurance company or by going without, because they all do it. We now have some reforms to start addressing that in a small, modest, first step kind of way which the right likes to get hysterical over but which does not in any way create death panels.

          2. This section sets a minimum benefits package that must be provided.  That  is not — in fact it is the opposite of — (a) a maximum benefits package, (b) a denial of XYZ medical service, (c) a declaration that granny’s plug must be pulled, or (d) whatever else your fantasy-land masters falsely tell mindless drones like you.

            I’m honestly not sure whether you’re (A) most stupid dumb-ass who ever was stupid, or (B) the most dishonest liar who ever was a bullshitter.  Either way, one of the things I love about Pols is that unlike on 99% of blogs, bullshit like yours gets called out.  So you’re free to continue to be the Village Idiot here, which is very entertaining for us, or you could instead troll some of the right-wing blogs where you can vent about death panels and Obama’s birth certificate to your heart’s delight.

              1. … who claims there are death panels by (a) citing an out-of-date version of the bill (b) that never ever said anything like a denial of coverage, and then (c) rambles about an “Elder Justice” provision that has nothing to do with anything either.

                But thanks for clarifying “they all agree” with you on the right-wing blogs. That gave me a laugh; I only wish all conservatives were as morony as you.

                1. Ok you did find it, just as I posted. (Again, doesn’t matter – they tried to slip it in.) No matter how many times you guys claim I am an idiot or a moron, it doesn’t make it true.

                  1. I mean, you can call it “the big gov’t” or “the nanny state” improperly “telling us what to buy” etc…  But how the fuck is it a “death panel”?

                    1. Dumbfuck, any benefit you have NOW isn’t “required”; adding a minimum requirement doesn’t TAKE AWAY anything from ANYONE!  (sorry for the all caps, but the subtlety of boldface was too little to make bj understand).

                      Analogy that may even be simple enough for you to understand: if the minimum wage is $7, that doesn’t mean your $20/hr wage DROPS to 7.  It just means folks below the min get raised up.

                      Again, you can say “this is terrible big-gov’t nanny-state” blah blah — but it’s just completely fucking illogical to say that setting a minimum (not maximum) benefits package is a “death panel.”

                      Congrats Libertad on no longer being the dumbest Pols commenter!

                    2. refuse to cover people altogether all the time, duh. And have you looked at “affordable” policies for people who don’t have employer coverage and have to buy their own privately?  They don’t cover much but do have outrageous premiums and deductibles and if you, say, are diagnosed with cancer, they’ll go over your application until they find something to give them an excuse to drop you.  Forgot that you were treated for acne 10 years ago?  Bye bye. Now there’s what I call a real death panel.  

                  2. No matter how many times you guys claim I am an idiot or a moron, it doesn’t make it true.

                    What makes you an idiot (or a moron) are the things you write.

      2. Because everyone knows the best time to drop dirt is not now, but in the middle of summer when no one is paying attention…

        Wishing something were so does not make it so. If it did every 3 year old girl would have a pony.

  2. but also needs to be looked at in terms of what Suthers reports.  First of all, Suthers did begin the month with almost $200K in the bank, and we still don’t know what he will show in today’s report.   If Suthers lays an egg (less than $20K), it could spell trouble.

  3. have realized just how important AG really is.  With Salazar, we got rescued from Texas Toast style redistricting.  With Suthers we got to be one to of the states trying to sabotage health insurance reform.  And it’s census time again. We now know that AG is a very, very big deal.

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

40 readers online now

Newsletter

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