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
30%↑
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%
September 22, 2010 11:35 PM UTC
8 Comments
and I was also at a gathering with Sen. Bennet the afternoon before the Club 20 debate.
In the afternoon he gave a very clear and philosophically sound explanation of his position. Briefly, that the important objective is a sound energy policy that provides for energy security. He explained that we should evaluate all the options that move us in this direction. If cap and trade does this (and in particular, does it better than other options) then we should pursue it. If it doesn’t, then let’s implement other options.
He explained it well. I apologize for my incoherence, but I’m in a hurry to make an appt.
On the other hand, I was quite disappointed that he wasn’t so lucid in his response at Club 20.
So, is it a flip flop, or was he supporting a bill that was in front of him at the time, even if it wasn’t the best of all possible approaches from his perspective.
Maybe you can ask him, H-man?
I saw his support in DC for cap and trade as inconsistent with what I understood him to say in the debate. If there is a thread of consistency, I just did not get it.
In the video, Bennet says he didn’t support the cap and trade bill “passed in the House. I don’t have the particulars of that at my fingertips, but if Reid brought out a watered-down bill for the Senate to consider: the difference between the House bill and Reid’s proposal?
Throughout, both in DC and GJ, Bennet argued for a much more comprehensive Energy policy, than merely carbon pricing.
I agree, Bennet needs to clarify his GJ statement, and, if he is unable to do so reasonably, I’ll accept it as a flip-flop.
And, considering the alternative, vote for him anyway.
Having been at the debate, I remember Bennet’s answer on this being much more cogent. Buck basically took the opportunity to rant about how we weren’t using enough coal, as I recall…
But I don’t see supporting cap and trade and not supporting the Waxman bill as a flip flop. Waxman was only cap and trade in the broadest definition of the term… it was a very very poorly written bill, as many acknowledged. And there were a lot of reasons to oppose it. I wasn’t excited about it, and I’m still not sure that it would have represented an improvement.
So basically, there’s a big difference between supporting Cap and Trade and the House Climate bill. Big big difference. This is not a flip flop.
Nice try to spread the gotcha around. What did Buck backtrack on today? His support for privatizing the VA?
Up 49-44 in latest Time/CNN poll.
When is he going to flip flop on privatizing the VA?
Also…Props on being totally non-responsive.
Cap n’ Trade was her and Grandpa McCain’s Energy plank when they were running for the White House. They completely endorsed it and sang its praises over and over.
Until the nation rejected them.
Then it became “Cap n’ Tax”. Typical Republican Conservative flip flopping shit.
Buck is just following the conservative formula word for word.