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*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
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) Manny Rutinel
(D) Shannon Bird
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%
August 22, 2010 05:20 PM UTC
19 Comments
I think everyone in Congress who voted for that viewed it as a necessary evil as the alternative was shutting down the government.
H-man has it wrong there. Romanoff said he supported the legislation but didn’t support the card check provision.
This whole post is a joke. If we are to accept that Buck’s views are nuanced, and have evolved, over something like funding the Department of Education, then why is H-man demanding bumper-sticker simplistic slogans on other complicated questions from Bennet?
My understanding of Romanoff’s support of the EFCA came from the following:
When I read the links it appears Romanoff supported the act, but not the provision that the act is referred to as.
On the larger point, Do you have a clue what Bennet’s position on card check is?
I don’t and I am not posturing. Surely he must have one.
Because he has stated it many times. At least once as early as April 2009.
Paraphrasing in a nut shell, Bennet supports labor’s right to organize. Bennet will take a position on the EFCA when a bill is presented.
That Bennet is avoiding stating a position on EFCA because when he does one of two groups is going to be upset. Understandable that he wants to put this off, and maybe even hope that the bill never comes to a vote. But I’m guessing this question will keep dogging him in the general and he’ll be forced to come down on one side or the other.
Not fairly made.
Bennet has talked about EFCA lotsa times. When there is a bill, he’ll talk about it more.
I agree that those who voted to increase the debt viewed it as a necessary evil. To see the point as unfair, you need to look at it as a vote unrelated to its cause. Had they not voted to increase spending, without paying for it, as Bennet has repeatedly done, it would not have been necessary. In that context, I think the point is fair.
On the larger issues I see similarities between Bennet and Norton. Both of them have a real need to be liked at the expense of doing what is right. That characteristic prevents either from being a leader.
In your business I know there are times when you have to do something that is not popular with everybody. You figure out which way to go and tell everybody involved. Can you imagine not telling one side, either the Unions of the Chamber of Commerce, that you disagree with them after 18 months? You can’t run a business that way.
George Bush in every SOTU address said he was not going to saddle future generations with debt, then did exactly that. I’ll grant you Republicans with being more consistent when you agree that letting the Bush tax cuts expire is a key big step toward a balanced budget.
I expect after the election the results of the blue ribbon commission will have a cauldron’s brew of fixes which involve the Bush tax cut repeal as one of the ingredients. I am not in favor of repealling them for some and not all. In fact I think one of our problems is we have a class of voters who don’t pay taxes which we should eliminate.
I would suggest a balanced budget requirement, and a phase out over 2 years of the Bush tax cuts for all brackets. I would add a tax bracket of 5% kicking in at $10K so more people have the pleasure of paying taxes, eliminating the mortgage deduction and many other deductions and credits that distort the market. Why should renters who can’t afford to buy a house subsidize those that can?
OMG, clearly something is very wrong with me 🙂
And not immediately repeal the Bush tax cuts for the richest 1%? Because that’s what H-Man said.
But if they’re still in place when the commission report comes out, then I’ll take later over never.
On the 5% at 10K I missed that – that’s way too low to start.
for the richest 3%, our wealthy overlords, thus adding nearly $1 trillion to the deficit, which–of course–impacts the debt.
More like a man of Cheney, and in favor of views which caused the financial collapse of 2008.
He’s in favor of a hypothetical 12 year old girl raped by a father being forced to carry the child.
He is a man of the extreme right and Karl Rove.
.
There is no Kerry/Lieberman climate bill. Nothing has been introduced or even released to the public. Bennet won’t tell people where he stands on legislation that doesn’t exist? Oh, the horror!
That is the Senate Bill which is available on line that got things going in the Senate. There is another Bill s2877 also available on line introduced by Cantwell dealing with the same subject. The house bill introduced by Waxman HR 2454 was where this started. Does Bennet have a position on any of them?
These have all been introduced and released to the public.