What We’ve Been Saying About The Senate Primary All Along

John Hickenlooper, Andrew Romanoff.

Six days before an unexpectedly vigorous Democratic U.S. Senate primary comes to an end next Tuesday, a hard-hitting story for underdog challenger Andrew Romanoff from the Colorado Sun today recounts in detail the problem we’ve been talking about in this space for months now: although Romanoff’s campaign in 2020 has run hard to the left of the presumed nominee Gov. John Hickenlooper, his long record stretching back to the early 2000s reveals that Romanoff has for most of his career been a considerably more conservative lawmaker than Hickenlooper was a governor:

“You can say his views have changed and evolved, and whether it’s convenient to do it in that particular circumstance is a big question,” [Pols emphasis] said Jim Carpenter, a former chief of staff in Democratic Gov. Roy Romer’s office where Romanoff worked.

In the 1990s, Romanoff epitomized the centrist movement within the Democratic Party, serving as adviser to the Democratic Leadership Council and co-chairman of the Colorado affiliate. The organization, aligned with former President Bill Clinton, called for the national party to “expand opportunity, not government” and policies “punishing criminals instead of explaining their behavior.”

As a state lawmaker for eight years starting in 2001, Romanoff charted a pragmatic political course working with business interests to deliver on legislation and even touted passage of a bill he called the “toughest illegal immigration package in the nation.”

For those of us who have been following Colorado politics for the two decades required to have been present for Romanoff’s time in office, the decidedly non-“progressive champion” elements of his long record are well known. But we’re willing to bet that the trending younger self-identified progressive voters backing Romanoff are not aware that he was once a leader of the much-reviled Democratic Leadership Council, widely blamed by the party’s left wing for “selling out” the Democratic Party during the Clinton years.

“In a brief interview, Romanoff acknowledged the shift in political direction. Asked if he once considered himself a moderate, he replied: “‘On some issues, I suppose.'”

The Colorado Sun (6/24/20)

Some of the more problematic moments in Romanoff’s past, like the 2006 anti-immigrant special session which passed crackdown bills into law that were later repealed by Gov. Hickenlooper, have received plenty of coverage. But another resolution supported by Romanoff back in 2003 as America went to war in Iraq highlighted in this story is making fresh waves nationally today:

That Romanoff was one of only seven Democrats in the Colorado House to join all 35 Republicans in passing a resolution in support of the Iraq War blows a gaping hole in his “progressive champion” image, and it’s something that even the most disgruntled lefty Intercept reader can’t ignore. When you combine this with Romanoff’s willing agency in cracking down on undocumented immigrants back when that was fashionable policy, it’s much more difficult to defend Romanoff’s shrill attacks on Hickenlooper’s left flank.

And the list goes on beyond what’s cited in this story. In 2014, Andrew Romanoff swore off support for single-payer health care while running against Republican incumbent Rep. Mike Coffman, saying “I don’t think we can afford to disrupt the country now.” That same year, Romanoff joined with Hickenlooper to oppose ballot measures to regulate the oil and gas industry backed by now-Gov. Jared Polis.

None of these historical points of fact are presented here to cover for John Hickenlooper’s very well known record on energy development, or his consistent and often painfully awkward triangulation off of tainted buzzwords like “socialism”–both problems we’ve criticized in this space that instinctively repel many Democratic primary voters. Hickenlooper’s blind spots and message stumbles have obscured for many Democratic primary voters a record that overall trends quite progressive on issues from gun safety to expanding access to health care.

The point that we have made in this space is that Romanoff’s actual record is in no substantive way more progressive than Hickenlooper’s, and that his attempted distinction from Hickenlooper in this regard is destructive and misleading. That being the case, Democratic primary voters need to consider every other metric in this race, from fundraising to name recognition to the clear result in polling matchups, that shows Hickenlooper is the candidate with the better capacity to take on Cory Gardner–in a race crucial to Democratic hopes of retaking the U.S. Senate. Republicans know this very well, and that explains their extraordinary spending to intervene in the Democratic primary.

This has been our read of this race from the moment Hickenlooper entered it, and unlike Andrew Romanoff’s platform, it has not changed. This is a story should have come out weeks ago, and it helps explain the rally of support to Hickenlooper from top progressive Democratic leaders like Sen. Elizabeth Warren in recent days.

Now it’s up to Democratic voters to show what they’re paying attention to.


63 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. The realistThe realist says:

    I'll read this when Romanoff drinks fracking fluid . . . 

  2. MADCO says:

    Pols, Pols, Pols… <smh>

    You are forgetting – he won the caucus.

  3. VoyageurVoyageur says:

    But, but, Hick's e-mails….

  4. VoyageurVoyageur says:

    Seriously, I have long argued Romo was an outstanding Clinton style moderate.

    That is what I like about him.

    Still, we just sent four votes for the Big Hick off.  Yes, on the record, he's to the left of Romo, and I still groan about his commutation of mass murderer Nathan Dunlop.  

    But this nation cannot afford any more Alitos on the Supreme Court.  And Hick is the more electable of two moderates.


    • JohnInDenverJohnInDenver says:

      Both are a substantial step up from Gardner.  Both are certain to cooperate less with the evil that McConnell recommends.  And I expect both will devote enough staff work to respond to more than 2 in 18 (or 20 — I've lost count) communications I've sent to Gardner's office. 

      I'm giving myself until Friday morning to waffle.  Lorena Garcia, less successful in this race than either, says

      This is what I have to say: both candidates are problematic. Neither candidate has earned the title of being a racial justice champion. There is no lesser of two evils, there is only one candidate who is choosing to use progressive talking points.

      • RepealAndReplace says:

        "Both are a substantial step up from Gardner."

        That goes without saying JiD. An avocado pit would be an improvement of Gardner as far as independence and judgment.

        (I know:  "Stay the course, Senator," as our in-house troll Moderatus would pathetically bleat out.)


      • 2Jung2Die2Jung2Die says:

        Garcia can legitimately claim to be a racial justice champion, but I was looking for someone who can legitimately claim they deserve to be a U.S. Senator and she didn't make that case in anything I ever saw.

        • kwtreekwtree says:

          Garcia’s column in the Colorado Sun is clear, brutally honest, and perceptive – qualities of hers I found compelling enough to support her US Senate bid – up until the time that a judge decided that Garcia’s campaign did not deserve more time to gather signatures during a pandemic. A month later, an anti-choice ballot initiative got extra time and will be on the 2020 ballot.  Go figure. 

          As for “deserving” to be a US Senator, the eminently qualified Senator Angela Williams won 4 elections, was in leadership positions in the Legislature, enjoyed support in a racially and economically diverse district, had strong rural roots, and was politically liberal/ moderate and business friendly. The only disqualifying qualities she had were being black and a woman. And when the DNCC stomped all over Colorado’s primary to bring in their handpicked corporate Hickencandidate, Senator Williams got stomped with the rest. So much for the democratic process.

          But I digress.

          It’s the climate, stupid

          SenatorFormer Representative Joe Salazar endorsed Andrew Romanoff, for the same reasons I prefer him to Hick – the climate crisis, duh. Hickenlooper, if elected, will be a “no” vote on the Green New Deal. He said so. He’ll vote for more offshore drilling permits and opening up wilderness areas, because he is still, as he always has been, a creature of the oil and gas industry. Hick’ll “Aw shucks” grin and waffle, but in the end he will dance with the ones that brung him. Even as we lose coastal shore lines and island populations and croplands and irreplacable natural landscapes to global warming.

          And we can’t keep procrastinating on  ameliorating climate change, because the climate sure as hell isn’t procrastinating on us. Hurricane and wildfire seasons this summer will, unfortunately, back me up on this.

          On the immigration issue:

          Romanoff’s statement to Joe Salazar was more persuasive to me on the immigration issue – not least because, he, too, is brutally honest and admits his mistake. 

          From Salazar’s Facebook comments on Romanoff endorsement:

          Joseph Salazar

          [Romanoff] was very apologetic and expressly stated that he made an epic mistake in 2006. He committed to me that he would never make such a mistake again and that he will fight for our immigrant communities as a US Senator. AND he recognized that he will have US there to guide him and advise him.

          Can you imagine Hickenlooper admitting fault and apologizing for, say, suing the people of Longmont over their local control of gas rigs, or perhaps why he waffled on cannabis legalization, or why he put an energy lobbyist on the PUC? Yeah…me neither. Apologies are something Hick won’t do.

          Can he out – talk Cory?

          I have another reason to prefer Romanoff to Hickenlooper: Romanoff is a better communicator. Anyone who saw the last few debates can attest to this. Cory Gardner is a smooth talker. He can spout glibberish for minutes on end, and it almost sounds like sense. Romanoff will be able to puncture Cory’s platitudes and pin him down to facts. Hickenlooper will gaffe and mumble and stumble. It’s what we’ve all seen.

          And please don’t give me that “Hickenlooper is the only one who can defeat Gardner” nonsense. V’s dead parakeet could defeat Gardner. Any generic Democrat can defeat Gardner.

          So, we get that John Hickenlooper is a friend of Pols, and consequently, Pols will always have his back.   But Hick is by far the weakest candidate in this race, in terms of liberal policy, climate policy, and communication chops.  Romanoff has  baggage from 14 years ago. Hickenlooper has baggage from his last two terms, ending last year.

          We can take back the Senate with a quality candidate who won’t sell us out for his donors. We should do that. Vote Romanoff.



          • Gilpin Guy says:

            I was at a meeting where Garcia spoke and was doubly unimpressed with her.  Some people do things for cause and some do it for ego.  She was definitely in the latter category.  If she wants political power that badly, she should start someplace where she can win like a town council or planning board.  In over her head and out of her league.  Romo and Hick are qualified to serve at this level.  Bless both of them and may the nominee clean Gardner's clock big time in November.

            • kwtreekwtree says:

              All politicians have big egos. It goes with the territory. But big egos are still considered off-putting and unlikeable in female candidates. I do happen to agree that Garcia should seek a lower level office, by the way.

              And I’ve been impressed with her smarts, personal charisma, and “heart of a servant” since she and her wife made their way to Fort Morgan on a dark, freezing February night over a year ago to talk with a few Morgan County Democrats.

              But congratulations on addressing a point in my post without attacking me personally. We’ll see if others follow your example.

              • 2Jung2Die2Jung2Die says:

                A little late, but I'll walk back my use of the word "deserve" since there are no official prerequisites for any race in the legislative branch. However, I think qualifications and capacity should be pretty heavy at the U.S. Senate level, and it looks like both kwtree and Gilpin Guy have acknowledged that Garcia wasn't there yet. The way I look at it is a competitive candidate ought to have a pretty good resume so the next step isn't a huge step, an ability to match up with a general election opponent, and the capacity to run and win a statewide campaign. The lack of said capacity to run and win statewide, even if it was recognition that going up against Hick in the primary would be tough, caused a lot of pretty good candidates to drop out much earlier in the process. I definitely wouldn't say about Williams what I said about Garcia, but I will say she's a safe-seat state legislator who would face an uphill battle running statewide, and her Caucus Chair doesn't match Romanoff's Speaker of the House in leadership responsibility or prestige. She's as qualified legislatively as the likes of Mike Johnston or Alice Madden, but that won't always get you to the next level in a race like this.

                • Conserv. Head Banger says:

                  @kwtree: John Hickenlooper has been a strong supporter of wilderness in Colorado, including new designations.

                  Kindly share with us, then, the source for your comment "he'll vote for opening up…..wilderness areas" (for oil & gas drilling).  

                  • kwtreekwtree says:

                    Patience, grasshopper. These things take time.

                    With John Hickenlooper, one must always watch what he does, not just listen to what he says. This is as true of public lands policy, as it is of cannabis or renewable energy or oil and gas extraction policies.

                    What Hick Says

                    Hick talks a good game about protecting public lands. He co- wrote a letter to then-Sec of Interior Zinke about Bears Ears, though Senators including Bennet and Udall did much more.  He has a COnservation agenda, in which he commits to never selling off public lands, and bringing all stakeholders to the table at the Federal level. He emphasizes his support for the LWCF and the CORE Act.

                    He brags about Colorado’s methane emissions regulations, which are good in theory, but data on emissions is suspect and there are few resources for enforcement and accountability for leakers.

                    Romanoff is more progressive on energy issues, per the Colorado Sun’s comparison.of the two Senatorial candidates. From the same article, Hickenlooper is opposed to new energy leases on public lands, but opposes breaking or modifying existing leases. Romanoff’s position is the same, but he adds “offshore drilling” as public lands (waters)  that should be protected.



                    What Hick does

                    But it is the actions Hick actually takes that are most predictive of what kind of Senator he would be.

                    I’ll look here at just two examples: the candidates’ attitudes towards moving the BLM HQ to Colorado, and the Federal vs. State compact protections of endangered species for the Western Sage Grouse.

                    Most observant people see that the move of the BLM headquarters to Grand Junction was mainly a ploy to gut the agency,  and lessen its power over public lands decisions. Romanoff sees it that way. Hick supported the BLM move but expressed “concern” about staffing issues.  As the Governor of the state proposed for the move, he could have opposed it much more vigorously.

                    Protecting Western Sage Grouse habitat vs. energy production

                    There have been a dozen diaries on Pols over the last five years, about the struggle to protect the Western Sage Grouse (WSG)l, and what this means for preservation of wilderness, public lands, recreation areas. Discussion has centered around enforcing the Colorado Package, which is Colorado’s part of an agreement between 11 states to preserve WSG habitat. All of this effort is necessary because the governors don’t want the WSG to be protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act, because

                    The 2015 plan is designed to protect the bird without putting it on the Endangered Species List, an outcome that most states try to avoid because it usually brings strict restrictions on oil and gas drilling, mining, agriculture and other activities to protect habitat.(Denver Post 2017)


                    If Hickenlooper is elected to Federal office, he may be in a position to directly vote on EPA and endangered species act laws. If he has been opposed to invoking strict Federal protections for the WSG species during his 8 years in office, because of feared impacts on energy production, why would he suddenly advocate for strict species-protecting but energy-production-restricting policies that he has avoided for 8 years?

                    As you know, CHB, protection of the Western Sage Grouse is intertwined with public lands use policy, especially for energy and agricultural leases in Colorado and other Western states. Yet, Hickenlooper gave his approval to Trump’s plan to open up 240,000 acres of WSG habitat for drilling. (Boulder Weekly)

                    In general, Hick owes his political fortunes to his oil and gas industry donors. He has repaid them well over the years, consistently advocating for their interests over those of the public or the environment. Why would Senator Hick suddenly begin prioritizing public health or the environment over those interests?

                    I can’t read Hick’s mind. His words are environmentally friendly, but all we really have to go on are his actions, which in my opinion speak louder than words.

              • Gilpin Guy says:

                We can agree to disagree regarding Garcia my literary friend.  I've been hiking in the Indian Peaks 3-4 times a week so rusty on all the personal insults and grievance stuff.  It just isn't as rewarding as seeing a high mountain lake that's only partially thawed set against a Cobalt blue sky.  Did I mention the wild Columbines and the start of wildflower season.  It's going to be special this year.

          • VoyageurVoyageur says:


            sorry, flightless bird,

            contrary to your windy fulminations,  “Senator Joe Salazar” did not endorse Romo.  Former U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar endorsed Hick, as did Elizabeth Warren, as did former U.S. Rep. John Salazar.

            Were you thinking of an obscure former state representative also named Salazar but no relation to the illustrious duo?

          • MADCO says:

            : The only disqualifying qualities she had were being black and a woman"

            She lacks name recognition outside her district

      • MADCO says:

        The problem with those progressive talking points is they don't win statewide general elections in Colorado.

        At least they haven't yet.

        I get it – ideological purity and a good candidate that loses is somehow better than winning.

        It's not. Winning matters. A lot.

        • Conserv. Head Banger says:

          Still waiting on kwtree to provide the source of her comment that Hickenlooper would "open up wilderness areas (for oil and gas drilling)." 

          • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

            Maybe the better question is:

            If T***p is re-elected, but Hick wins the senate ( a possible outcome ) will Hickenlooper get in the ODs' way as a senator? Or, perhaps instead, look the other way, at the request of one of their mutual friends…or are you suggesting they don't have mutual friends?

            • Conserv. Head Banger says:

              I suggest nothing. Simply waiting for an answer from kwtree.

              • VoyageurVoyageur says:

                It may be a while, chb.  The flightless bird is very busy right now compiling a list of people whose livEs don't matter.  It's a dirty job but she has to do it since she flies into a rage at the suggestion that all lives matter.

                My sources tell me that you and I are at the top of the list, along with R&R.


                • kwtreekwtree says:

                  That’s some world class paranoia you got going on there, buddy. Your life matters for sure, but many of your posts (to me, anyway), really don’t.
                  My reply to CHB  is further up the page.

                  • MADCO says:

                    Why did Romanoff lose statewide in 2010?

                    Why did he lose again in CD6?

                    • kwtreekwtree says:

                      In 2010, OFA (Obama’s campaign / organizing juggernaut) jumped into the primary for Bennet. That “combined campaign” had all the enthusiastic, campaign-savvy Obama folks knocking doors and canvassing for Bennet.  Romanoff had a lousy campaign staff (full disclosure – I was a volunteer). So that’s my take on 2010.

                      Here’s the Colorado Indy’s take on the CD6 race.

    • spaceman65 says:

      Hick didn't commute on Dunlap.  He didn't have the guts to do so.  He basically put the execution on hold indefinitely.  Polis actually had the guts to enter clemency orders commuting the death sentences.  


      • VoyageurVoyageur says:

        That was exactly what I hated about Hick.  If you really think that nobody — not Dunlop, not ted bundy, not Hitler — deserves the death penalty, look me in the eye and say it.  I'll disagree but then we can move on to other issues.

        This business of kicking the can down the road, however, illustrates Hick at his worst. 

        Still, the only perfect man I know is myself, and even I suffer from excessive modesty.

        For all their faults, we have fine candidates and Hick is the more electable in a must win race.

      • notaskinnycooknotaskinnycook says:

        And it doesn't matter anyway, now that the Legislature has repealed Colorado's death penalty. Same result in this case. 

        • VoyageurVoyageur says:

          erasing duplicate and adding that
          trump Stinks!

        • VoyageurVoyageur says:

          Well, if Hick had had the integrity to let the law run its course, Dunlop would have been in hell years b before the legislature caved in on the issue.  I would not have spared him any tears.


        • Gilpin Guy says:

          What does matter is that Hickenlooper made an unpopular decision to not kill the man on his watch and history says that the death penalty is currently not a deterrent to crime and no longer useful.  Revenge isn't a valid justification and doesn't restore the life of the victim to their families.  Hickenlooper was ahead of his time on the issue even if he didn't do it in the properly prescribed manner of men.  He did what he thought was right and things changed afterwards.  That sounds like leading to me.

          • VoyageurVoyageur says:


            saying ” I won’t execute this mass murderer but I won’t spare him either, I’ll just pas s the buck to the next guv . “?

            if that’s leading, then what is your definition of w imping out?

            Wimping out on a mass murder is the worst thing Hick did.

            Likewise commuting the sentence of the traitor Manning  was Obama’s worst decision.

            But at least Obama made a decision, albeit a terrible one.

            Even good politicians have bad days.  Overall, Hick was a good governor and Obama a great president.  But his wimpout on Dunlop will forever stain Hick’s record.

            Hell, if you can’t make the moral choice, guv, flip a coin!  But take a stand! Nobody l ikes a wimp.

            • JohnInDenverJohnInDenver says:

              Hick does seem to have an extensive drive to make people of all stances on a variety of issues sorta satisfied, sorta irritated by his ability to pick his way through the issue.  The capital punishment nonchoice is a leading example. Waffling on 2nd Amendment issues (and even apologizing for going too far after the choice was made) is another.  Pushing oil & gas regulation issues to a committee is a third. 

              If I remember correctly, Hick was against marijuana at each step:  decriminalization, legalized medical marijuana, then recreational marijuana. 

              His campaign site explains his current stance at the federal level:


              As U.S. Senator, I will fight to remove cannabis from classification as a Schedule I drug. This would enable the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and National Institutes of Health researchers to study and research marijuana’s potential medical uses.



              Not much about legalization: instead, he says "I believe we must decriminalize marijuana at the federal level, with the flexibility for states to determine whether or not to legalize it."

              Flexibility … Hick seems all for it.

    • RepealAndReplace says:

      Exactly which is why I voted for Andrew in 2010 over Thurston Howell in the primary. (Not that Michael Bennet was bad. It was just a choice between two decent candidates.)

      Hick probably is to the left of Old "DLC" Romo on some issues but not of New "Free Stuff" Romo.

  5. davebarnesdavebarnes says:

    Too late to count.

    The votes have been cast.

  6. Conserv. Head Banger says:

    I didn’t vote for either Hick or Romanoff. Reason: I got a Republican primary ballot.

    I left the Senate vote blank. I like some of Cory’s work on public lands, especially LWCF. However, I’m repelled by his overall voting record being supposedly 98% or thereabouts in lockstep with Trump.

    • VoyageurVoyageur says:

      Cory is the best the Rs have.  If Hillary was president, I might vote for him.  But everything Trump touches dies and Cory is no exception.

    • VoyageurVoyageur says:

      Cory is the best the Rs have, but we just can’t afford Trump/mitch enablers.

    • Gilpin Guy says:

      The things is CHB, the LWCF was a no brainer to fund and had been for quite some time.  Letting it lapse and then crowing about how amazing it was to get funded again is kind of like crowing about paying your electric bill.  Some things aren’t that exceptional.  As far as helping the pot industry, still waiting.

      • ajb says:

        And Cory has done all he can to sabotage the CORE Act (if I have my acronyms right).

        • Conserv. Head Banger says:

          I wouldn't say that Cory has tried to "sabotage" the CORE Act. However, he hasn't stepped up and supported it as he should have. Cory missing in action on the CORE Act is a slap in the face of our veterans since CORE would create a national historical landscape designation for Camp Hale.

          GG: having followed the LWCF issue for many years, I'd call it a "no brainer" to fund, based on my personal opinion, but not on the political realities. 

  7. MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

    Yawn.  Someone seems nervous, or is that just me? I'll bet I could come with a handful of positions Obama held early on that weren't all progressive – and then he evolved.  I'd prefer an elected that can adapt – evolve.  I'm with realist on this one…except call me when John comes clean on the Congressional stunt. 

    I'm far from a disgruntled lefty Intercept reader but this is yet another silly thread. 



    • Diogenesdemar says:


      Don’t you want to be convinced that you’re not really a progressive unless you’ve voted for Hick (. . . a Romanoff PINO vs. a true, “all along” Hickenlooper pinko, I spose’)? . . .

      Bet you didn’t even realize how much of a closet Republican you really are? — not like John!

      . . . there’s a logic to all this here, just so long as you’re not concerned with it being all that logical. 

      (Someone please wake me if Hickenlooper ever starts evolving . . . He might finally yet give me something worth seeing?)

      • MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

        I can’t figure out why we’re suppose to chide Andrew for moving his positions to the left – while we’re simultaneously making the assumption JH will do the same thing (climate, health care in particular) after he’s elected? 

        • Diogenesdemar says:

          I can’t figure out why we’re suppose to chide Andrew . . . 

          I dunno’ either . . .

          . . . maybe there’s some clues in those photographs Alva chose to use for this diary???

        • Gilpin Guy says:

          If you flip the logic Michael then why give Romanoff the benefit of the doubt that his changes are genuine and evolving and not purely political opportunism but Hickenlooper can't change because he can't.  It's a really weird argument my friend.

          • Diogenesdemar says:

            While you’re standing there on your head GG, ponder this:  the argument Pols has made is not whether Hick can change in the future (conceivably he could, . . .“Vote for Hick, he might surprise you and be better than expected someday!” . . . but, well anyway, you know, Hick . . . ), but rather that he is more the progressive now than Romanoff is now today because of past appletinis and origami?

            We can always question ‘Hicks sincerity later, too, (if he ever takes a position on something someday he hasn’t had to have been dragged into doing, and doesn’t later walk it back himself.)

            Standing on your head might be good fun for a few minutes when you’re a child, and can manage it, but it’s no way to ride a bicycle, finish a crossword puzzle, or quaff a glass of frackenade.

            Doesn’t all that blood make you feel like your head’s gonna’ splode’? . . .


          • MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

            Because Andrew (like myself) I believe is authentic  in his evolultion: I was a Republican for 30 years and still believe that a genuine implementation of *real* conservatism would give me most of what I want out of life.  I can believe the Green New Deal and Universal Health Care have merit – in particular because they are likely the best economic case to deal with our environmental and social challenges. I believe conservative implementation of progressive goals would be an ideal scenario for all of us.  

            I have more personal history with Andrew than John so I’m not struggling with a trust issue when I say I trust Andrews word.  Again, I’ll support John in the general if he’s the victor – we just happen to have differing opinions on who best serves a state that is turning increasingly-darker shades of blue each election cycle.


  8. itlduso says:

    My family's votes went for Hick.  I'm holding on to the remainder of my PPP money to donate to whoever wins the primary.

    (To date, I have donated to Tom Sullivan, Chris Kolker, Jason Crow, Biden, and the following Dem Senate candidates in IA, NC, AZ, GA, KS and SC.  Still waiting for primary results in KY, ME and CO.  After donating half of my PPP money to the Food Bank of the Rockies, I thought this would be another good way to spend that money.)

    • VoyageurVoyageur says:

      Thats what I did too itlduso.  half to mynkids, half to good dems.  Will repeat assuming we get good ds in November.  Nothing forvColorado candidates in primaries yet, yet because I don’t fund blue on blue, except for president.

      I also sent a c-note to Denver, coloradoand dnc party organizations. we have to keep their lights on

  9. Genghis says:

    Today the Senate confirmed Cory Wilson to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Wilson is the 200th Trump judicial nominee confirmed by the Senate. Trump appointees now constitute 23% of the Article III judiciary. Those judges will be fucking up people's lives and the nation's institutions for decades after the Great Fat Fool is dead and buried.

    It is impossible to overstate importance of defeating Gardner come November.

  10. notaskinnycooknotaskinnycook says:

    The Fifth Circuit  (Texas, Louisiana Mississippi) has always leaned way right. He just replaced one right-wing nut with another. Nothing really changed there.

    • JohnInDenverJohnInDenver says:

      The thing that changed was the new judge is Cory Todd Wilson, born August 08, 1970.   So, the Circuit Court will be graced with his presence for probably tne next 25-30 years. 

      He'd served as a clerk for one year, and has been on the Mississippi Court of Appeals for  a bit over one year … " In December 2018, Wilson was appointed to the Mississippi Court of Appeals… He was sworn into office on February 15, 2019."  At least the ABA gave him a "Well Qualified" rating.  he's not as much a hack as some.  and he was only a "intermittent" member of the Federalist Society. 

    • Genghis says:

      Wilson is assuming a full-time judgeship that opened up when Grady Jolly, a Reagan appointee, took senior judge status in 2017. So the RWN is still on the court. And in fact, though pretty “conservative” overall, Jolly isn’t a monolithic RWN. He wrote an opinion shooting down a La. law requiring that creationism be taught in public schools, an opinion SCOTUS affirmed in Edwards v. Aguilar. More recently, he provided the deciding vote and wrote the majority opinion in a case that Mississippi’s sole abortion clinic open.

      Of course, all this is beside the point, namely that Trump appointees make up almost 1/4 of all Art. III judges.

      • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

        Since, by his own admission, T***p expects his judicial appointees to deliver for him, it is safe to say, most of them will. Do one of you legal experts know if these judges are subject to recall by the congress? If they demonstrate a identifiable bias as a factor in their decisions, are they accountable to someone besides their creator?

        • Genghis says:

          They're subject to impeachment by the House and removal by the Senate, the standard being "good behavior" as opposed to "high crimes and misdemeanors." It's happened, but not often.

          • JohnInDenverJohnInDenver says:

            There is no “recall” — appointment for life means precisely that. 

            Of the 20 Impeachment resolutions passed by the House, 15 of them involved judges.  3 resigned before trial.  Senate convicted 8, did not convict 4. 

            One study looked at just over 200 years of history, and found

            Between 1789 and 1992, 2,627 men and women served as federal judges.  Of those, 184 left the bench citing reasons other than health or age.

            That’s only 7%.  Some choose to retire upon revelation of scandal.  Some are willing to resign to take some other post they’ve aspired to (for the government OR some other institution) — an increase in salary often being one obvious consequence.  A few have resigned in protest and unwillingness to participate in some change in their working conditions or legal responsibility.

            If the numbers continue like that, about 14 of the 200 appointed by Trump & confirmed by McConnell & Co. will resign before they are claimed by ill health or age.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.