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) Jeff Crank

(R) Dave Williams

60%↑

40%↓

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%↑

40%↑

20%↓

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 15, 2010 10:34 PM UTC

At Least She's Not Your Senate Candidate

  • 97 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

As it turns out, there was a reason why Colorado GOP chairman Dick Wadhams wanted his friend Sue Lowden to win that Nevada Senate primary–the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent reports:

Here’s another one that could be tough for  Sharron Angle  to explain away: In an interview in January, Angle appeared to float the possibility of armed insurrection if “this Congress keeps going the way it is.”

I’m not kidding. In an interview she gave to a right-wing talk show host, Angle approvingly quoted Thomas Jefferson saying it’s good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years — and said that if Congress keeps it up, people may find themselves resorting to “Second Amendment remedies.”

…Asked by the host, Lars Larson of Portland, Oregon, where she stands on Second Amendment issues, Angle replied:

You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said it’s good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years.

I hope that’s not where we’re going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out. [Pols emphasis]

Are we the only ones who find it more than a little creepy that the Republican nominee to run against Harry Reid is talking about “taking him out”–you know, literally, Pulp Fiction style? Tell us all you want about unfavorable ratings and incumbent dissatisfaction. Are any of you willing to argue that Americans are really primed for an honest-to-God Latin American coup?

Look long and hard, folks. Not electable.

Comments

97 thoughts on “At Least She’s Not Your Senate Candidate

  1. This is much ado about nothing.

    Wadhams likes his candidates NRSC approved.  Angle was not.  She will do just fine and is already ahead in the polls.  Poor Harry.  Done in by the Tea Party.

    1. She’s touched the Third Rail (abolishing Social Security), wants to do away with most of the Federal government, and is interested in actually applying her Second Amendment rights in revolution against our elected government.

      The Nevada GOP candidates are the reason Harry Reid is now back from the dead politically.  If they’d wanted to “take him out”, their best shot was to elect someone who isn’t bat-shit crazy.

          1. I’m talking about what the polls show in the Angle vs. Reid race.

            Personally, my opinion is that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are already bankrupt, so it’s only a matter of time before they go under. I think public schools should be under state or local control rather than federal control.

        1. this congress was duly elected by the citizens and is therefore the legitimate voice of the people, not a tyranny.   If the people decide they don’t agree with those they elected to represent them, they don’t need a revolution.  They just need to vote for different representatives in the next election.  

          Tyranny would be if our wishes as expressed through our votes were ignored. Let’s say if a president refused to step down or congress members refused to be submitted to a scheduled election. A fairly and legally elected government is not tyrannical but if you think it is, you get to change it next election.

          If the far right really had been the majority at the time of our last election, (which is when we get to have our do-overs) as they love to claim, then we wouldn’t have a Dem in the White House and Dem majorities in both houses of congress. Since we do it can only mean that that is what the majority wanted.  Otherwise they wouldn’t have voted that way.

          Tea partiers mainly don’t understand the first thing about our constitutionally mandated form of government. They don’t understand where their medicare and social security checks come from. They don’t understand that supporting the troops is supporting a huge government institution and they don’t understand where serving military, military family and vet’s benefits come from. They don’t understand where the funds to pay for the fence and border troops they want come from.  

          I guess they just think that whatever they don’t like is unconstitutional because they don’t like it.

          1. now that Obama got elected and people saw his actual policies enacted vs. the hopey-changey crap he spewed in the election.

            Tea partiers do recognize where all that stuff comes from, and they want cuts across the board in order to be fiscally responsible. I find it laughable that the typical lib argument is “well we need these things, so you’re crazy not to support them”. You forget that there is no such thing as a free lunch, and we will pay for it sooner or later. The pain will be less if we take care of it now.

        2. Assassination, or armed insurrection.

          The whacko right does. but they prove day after day the whole bunch (Including you BJ) are lunatics.

          1. And to equate what I said with support for assassination or revolution is just disingenuous. Angle was merely pointing out the reason for the 2nd amendment; I don’t think she seriously believes that our government has reached such a level of tyranny that a revolution is needed instead of a peaceful election.

    1. Lowden might have recovered from Chicken-Gate, especially against a low popularity guy like Reid.  But this whack job?

        Hey, I’m on Social Security.  IF this goon tries to cut us off, we’ll teach her a few things about the Second Amendment!

        Re-elect Harry.

    1. Calling all negative ad makers.  Let’s have a few spots of this dweeb waving her AK-47 and trying to take away Social Security.

        In Germany in 1932, the Slogan was “Better Hindenburg than Hitler.”

        Hindenburg won.  

         

        1. You’re wrong, by the way.  Read the trustees report.  At worst, in 42 years, future benefits would have to be reduced to a level that, adjusted to inflation, is higher than today’s level.

           The system has some longt-term issues that need to be dealt with.  But the efforts to wreck it are doomed to failure — and rightly so.

          1. getting all facty and reasonable.

            Have you no clue how much easier it is to just spout sound bytes and ez to remember bs?   Sure, sometimes it’s wrong- but that’s kind of besides the point isn’t it?

            I intend to bankrupt SS by outliving the wildest actuarial expectation.  150 or 200, at least.

            1. fueled by a $10 per outburst tax on Whack Jobs.

              With this being an election year, the proceeds should ensure the solvency of the fund to 2525!

          2. This illustrates everything that is wrong with your view in the first place. It is not your God given right to have social security; it is a benefit and privilege paid for by the tax payers. When the government takes more and more of our tax money for other things, there is none left for social security. To force me into poverty so you can retire in style is just shameless.

              1. I’m not sure what you mean about not making enough to pay taxes. Every paycheck I get has withholding, and when I do my taxes at the end of the year I don’t get it all back because I owe taxes.

            1. They have no sense of history. BJ, why do you suppose Social Security and Medicare were implemented in the first place? It’s because the destitute old people were either dying on the streets or dragging down their families. Social Security was intended to give old people (sorry to the over-65s) a subsistence payment to carry them through old age and death without becoming a burden on their families and the rest of us. Medicare was passed because (duh) insurance companies wouldn’t insure old people.

              BJ, would you rather pay into Social Security or would you rather have your parents move into your house when they are too old to work any more, so you can feed them, clothe them, and pay for their medical care yourself? If you are or get married, you can have your in-laws move in with you, too.

              If that sounds like a better alternative than allowing your parents to retain their independence and dignity, then by all means keep ranting about social security.

              1. I’m not saying there shouldn’t be any system; I’m saying the one we have is not working right now because liberals raided social security funds to pay for their big government projects.

        2. because it is our most successful  government program and any future problems can easily be fixed by raising or eliminating the cap, raising the retirement age a little, and other simple and not terribly drastic fixes. They only seem drastic to our gutless pols. Social Security is not bankrupt just because the right likes to say so.  

          Of course I know plenty of people in your generation who would think you are a complete wacko.  More of your generation voted for Obama and other Dems, is fine with full gay rights including marriage and serving in the military, universal healthcare and on and on so my guess is that you don’t particularly speak for your generation.

          1. that money doesn’t grow on trees. It’s sad the lack of knowledge of basic financial principles in my generation. We’re killing the golden goose.

            1. weaker economies and higher debt and deficits.  Our economy, as scary as it is, is already in better shape by many measures than what the last GOP administration left us. Also,working folks are already paying less in taxes even though the Tea Party crowd claims otherwise.  All they need to do is look at their tax returns but that would be so facty.

              Ditto for what the Clinton administration left us after Bush I and before Bush II. Remember Clinton  denying Bush I a second term campaigning on  “It’s the economy, stupid?” and  Bush II turning  the stunning Clinton surplus into a stunning deficit and leading us into a catastrophic economic meltdown?    

              Just because Rs say that they are fiscally responsible and better for Main street business and the economy in general doesn’t make it true.  It is, in fact, demonstrably false over many, many decades.  

        3. ….and yet here we are, collecting SS. I started a few months ago.  

          SS is NOT bankrupt, even though you and your ilk insist it is.

          My age group is the first one to fund not only our parent’s SS, but our own.  What is in place is thanks to the rescue by Saint Ronnie and the Democrats in Congress.  

                1. The apparently long list of things you don’t realize is not really the point.

                  There was a national debt.

                  There were budget deficits.

                  In 2001 Bush/Cheney were sworn in and all fiscal hell broke loose, in part because they believed “Deficits don’t matter.”

                  Debt financed wars almost always have the same result – destabilizing debt and big inflation.  It happened after Viet Nam and it’s going to happen after Iraq/Afghanistan.  

                  The point to realize is that deficits do matter. Big deficits matter more.

                  BTW- Reagan realized it, followed Volker’s lead and raised taxes.  I’d love to get the Reagan tax rates back.

            1. …you look to almost $700 billion going to our military, not the world’s most successful anti-poverty program that is self-funding.  

        4. ….and yet here we are, collecting SS. I started a few months ago.  

          SS is NOT bankrupt, even though you and your ilk insist it is.

          My age group is the first one to fund not only our parent’s SS, but our own.  What is in place is thanks to the rescue by Saint Ronnie and the Democrats in Congress.  

      1. In the RCP average, Angle is up by 2.7% which can’t be characterized as a commanding lead. If she continues to make war on social security in a state that has 12% of its population 65+ and another 17% between the ages of 50 and 64, plus propounding silly notions about revolution, she will self destruct.  

        1. Which, similar to Kentucky, introduced a post-primary poll having Angle up by some ridiculous amount where the other polls are showing Reid close or pulling in to the lead (albeit with a horrible percentage of the vote).

            1. Angle got a boost of favorable publicity when the media went gaga on the Year of the Woman theme.  

                But in a few weeks, when her Mad Cow positions get a little more apparent, this dweeb will drop like a rock.

                Here’s the thing: there’s nothing left to throw at Harry Reid that hasn’t been thrown and thrown and (yawn) thrown again.

                But Angle is negative campaigners heaven.  They will take this blank canvas and define her as a whack Job long before she defines herself.  And she’s doing her best to help them!  Reid should go ahead and sign that six-year extension on the lease of his Georgetown condo.

              1. Reid is not in great shape; his poll numbers haven’t gone up – rather, his opponents’ poll numbers have sunk like rocks.  In a year where “the same old broken machine” isn’t a good thing to be, Reid is the poster child for voters’ perceived problems.

                Even so, given the opportunity to bury Reid politically, Republicans have seemingly jumped at every opportunity to do themselves in instead.

                1. In the end, the devil you know is better than the Whack Job you don’t know.

                    Yeah, Harry should sign the lease.  Even if Angle beats him, he can stay on as a lobbyist — assuming Bennet’s lobbying ban doesn’t pass.

            2. Post-primary, Ras polled the KY-Sen race with Rand Paul leading Jack Conway by 25 points.  After other polls showed a different scenario (Paul up 3 to 6 points, Rasmussen re-polled and came up with an 8 point Paul lead.  So 25-8 = 13.  11-13 = Reid +2 (by Rasmussen “corrected poll” standards).

                1. Most people aren’t paying attention yet.  They may thik they know they’re tired of Harry but wait until they get ad after ad with the wacko queen’s positions on the air, especially her view of social security, in a senior rich state with seniors being great voters. And there is so much more to choose from than just that in her wack job hit parade.

                2. The rule used to be that if your approval was under 50%, then undecided voters would tend to go to the challenger. That rule lost any real predictive power after Bush won re-election in 2004. His approval rating was never above 50% in 2004 IIRC.

                  1. If you have a candidate horrible enough (See: Kerry, John) then it doesn’t matter how disliked the incumbent is. Republicans haven’t been able to discover anyone with the ability to unseat Obama. All they have is a bad taste in their mouths, and slobber all over their Gadsden flags.

    2. watch for the Yucca Mountain issue to push Reid over the line, though.  

      All politics is local and Angle is on record being in favor of turning Nevada into America’s nuclear waste dump.  Reid has spent his entire career blocking this.  It is largely THE reason he has survived so many close calls in the past (against foes who also oppose Yucca being used as a nuclear waste repository…including John Ensign).  Angle’s nutty positions and statements will drive up her negatives and but the Yucca Mountain position will finish her off.

      1. but you’re dead right.  It’s like McInnis position on Pinon Canyon.  It’s defensible — but political suicide.  And not exactly where I’d make a “profiles in Courage” stand.

          P

        1. The potential nuclear dump site is at Yucca Mountain precisely because other sites where it would be more suitable put up a bigger NIMBY fight.  Structural reports on Yucca do not indicate it to be even close to the best site for storage…

          1. than just leaving stuff in the pools forever.

            The anti-nukers try desperately to prevent any safe method of storing nuclear waste, then try to eliminate nuclear power because there is no place to dump the waste.  

            Kinda like shooting your parents, then asking for mercy from the court because you’re an orphan.

            1. Is it better that BP drilled that well with Deepwater Horizon and wound up having it spill out all over the Gulf, or would it have been better to make more sound decisions on safety precautions which they avoided to save some time and money?

              The same goes for Yucca Mountain.  Analysis of the site says it has groundwater issues that could potentially leak serious amounts of radioactive material.  Other sites in the nation are much better, but they’ve got strong NIMBY efforts that won out (until Reid became majority leader).

              We have to do something, but we have to do something responsible, not something just to get it done.

              1. and note they are from opponents of this site in particular and nuclear power in general.  I frankly didn’t find them very convincing.  It’s like saying that if you can’t guarantee 100 percent perfect performance in perpetuity, then you should do nothing at all.

                  Other sites, after all, would be 2o-30 years away from opening.  And when they got near, you could be certain that the foes would find , or claim to find, something wrong there too.

                  This is guerrilla politics, not science.  It’s akin to the deniers of the Climate Change claiming that everything needs more study for a thousand years or so.  

                1. WTF don’t we allow fuel rods to be reprocessed a la France?  I’d feel much safer about containment if the volume were lower (and the containment surrounding the waste correspondingly larger as a result).

                  If the nuclear energy industry wants a subsidy, this is the form I’d like for it to take – let the U.S. government subsidize reprocessing and security of the material while it’s in a state that could be re-formed into weapon material.

                  1. But once again, we can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.  I regard those rods as a very valuable source of future energy, which is part of the reason I’d like to see them stored safely in a facility where they could be recovered, like Yucca Mtn. .  

                    And if the New York Times piece a few days ago about the “traveling wave reactor” is right, the new technology may almost make this moot.  

                      But whether you have a “better solution”” is arguable.  Only if it can actually be implemented and put into effect is it “better.”

                    After 50 years of luddite resistance in the nuclear power field, I’m very skeptical.

                       

                    1. And it can take spent fuel rods as input (or, apparently, as “starter fuel” for a new reactor with U-238 fuel once it’s started…).

                      But the company isn’t looking to start production on its first reactor until 202 or later.

                      I’m most skeptical about nuclear power’s future not because of dump sites, but rather because of hurdles in the way of building new plants.  Those start from the obvious (water supply and release plans), through the mundane (start-up costs are enormous, and past plants have been largely government subsidized, hiding the costs), to the absurd (anti-nuclear groups scaring residents that “this new technology will produce twice as many three-headed cows in daily operation as TMI did during its accident”).  There are tremendous obstacles to jump-starting the nuclear power industry; this new reactor addresses only a few of them…

                    2. I am also chillingly aware of the consequences of the current coal uber alles policy.

                      I foresee a future keyed to nuclear for baseline power, supplemented by solar and wind.  Plus our existing hydro and whatever we can add with geothermal.

                       I wouldn’t add much if any hydro except to the extent we can build or retrofit pumped storage projects, like xcel’s cabin creek, to act as “batteries” to store solar and wind power.  I’d use gas only to augment solar/wind.  Coal should be limited to Christmas presents to misbehaving children like Jon Caldera.

        1. to smear Reid.  kill Social Security Girl is a blank slate, and dI can’t wait to start drawing on it.  Lowden was a credible candidate.  Kill Social Security Girl is a whack job.  

            And for proof of the pudding, let me note that you knew exactly who I was referring to when I said “Kill Social Security Girl.”

            This is actually going to be fun.  

  2. Someone called in, referenced the tea party and the 9/12ers and then said this is what we need to get rid of in order to get our country back:

    bullets

    banks

    bonds,

    Princeton,

    Yale

    Harvard.

    (I hope I got that right..prettty sure I did)

    Tancredo, said something to the effect that you need the first to get rid of the other five.

  3. What she’s even talking about. What has Congress done regarding gun control? Am I missing something obvious here? Seems more like she’s throwing red meat to the Gundamentalists.

    This will appeal solely to the same people who started stocking up on guns-n’-ammo as soon as Obama was elected. Everyone else either doesn’t care, or isn’t dumb enough to fall for a lame red herring with no evidence to back it up.

  4. Namely, that she doesn’t match the profile of Republicans here.

    Ken Buck and Jane Norton may not be Sharon Angle, but they’re still really extreme. Attacking social security? Has that EVER worked? Axing the Dept. of Education? Seriously?

    1994 Called. They want their talking points back.

    They’ve both been trying to out-bat-shit-crazy the other, and it seems to be…working isn’t the right word…maybe happening? In that both have gone so far right I’m not totally convinced that either is electable against a good, well-run campaign that can draw those contrasts aggressively.

    1. I think you will find more people in Colorado think it “bat shit crazy” that Bennet voted to have Colorado pay for Nebraska’s indigent health care than Buck’s position that some of the functions of the Department of Education in DC should be assumed by the various states.

      Is it Bennet’s campaign of trying to have the White House take care of Romanoff so he would not have a primary, losing the caucuses and an even bigger loss in the assembly, that is the good, well-run campagn? Or, would that be the campaign of  Romanoff who found his backbone on his backbone express so he could belatedly fess up to the job offers?  Maybe it was the Romanoff photoshoppinggate that struck you as a good, well-run campaign?

      Which one is the good, well-run campaign that Buck will be going against?

      Just askin’

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

61 readers online now

Newsletter

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