President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

52%↑

48%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

50%

50%

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
November 29, 2010 07:44 AM UTC

Testing. Testing. Is this thing on?

  • 10 Comments
  • by: HorizonBk

Ok, here we go, the inaugural entry to this ColoradoPols Diary.  (A diary is a very odd choice of terms.  Is it different than a blog?)  Regardless, this will be no explosive screed or particularly insightful entry.  Rather, just a toe-dip into this space.  Here are a couple of political topics that interest me right now:

– Vote-by-mail.  This made the top of the list?  Jeeze, what a snoozer.   That said, I’ve spent time in Oregon and have to say: this method of enfranchisement kicks butt, ‘specially in states that have a low entry cost for voter initiatives and multiple ballot amendments, etc (why is it that states west of the Mississippi think this preferred to representative democracy?).  I think vote-by-mail opens the door for more voter turn-out, allows for more informed decision-making, extends the length of the closing phase of a campaign and dilutes the effect of the major ad buy in the last week of the election.  Here’s my favorite reason for vote-by-mail:  no election-day crowds or juggling with other priorities.  Out of town unexpectedly?  No problem.  Let’s wrap this up: I was really happy to return to Colorado and join the list of permanent vote-by-mail registrants.

– Higher Education Funding.   Why in the world is Colorado consistently ranked on the bottom for higher education funding?  Thank goodness for Vermont and New Hampshire, otherwise we’d really look bad.  What’s going on here?  I suspect voter initiatives that on-the-one-hand limit revenues (TABOR) and on-the-other-hand locks us into K-12 prescribed funding (Amendment 23), but all these votes went down before I arrived on the scene.  This is a big reason I vote against most if not all voter initiatives, for good or bad.  We’ve hamstrung our government and now we’re slowly killing Colorado community colleges, Universities, and opportunities for our workforce.

– Endangered-Species.  And by this, I mean moderate republicans.  Let’s take climate change as an example of how the Republican party has wholesale staked out a position that is completely dissociated from reality and makes it impossible to find common ground with everyone else in the country (to say nothing of the broader international community).  If Colorado politicians follow the lead of the tea party darling Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and begin a witch hunt of climate change researchers it will be a real shame.

– Colorado Oil and Gas Rules.  The idea that new oil and gas rules were hurting the state has to be the biggest smokescreen in this year’s election cycle.  What exactly were the problems with these rules?  I have a feeling that this issue (or, more specifically, this non-issue) will quietly go away.

Tweet
Share

Comments

10 thoughts on “Testing. Testing. Is this thing on?”

  1. The Colorado oil and gas industry will never give up on repealing or weakening the rules, kicking anyone with a semblamce of neutrality off of the COGCC, loading local governments with industry lackeys and shills, deliberately lying to the public and the government, and on and on and on.

    Devoutly to be wished, but…no.

    1. I have just read that the CPA and COGA have made statements indicating they are not seeking to overturn the rules…even though the lawsuit they filed is still pending.

      IMHO, If they thought they had a snowballs chance in Hell of getting the rules repealed, they might have a different public approach. But…they don’t.

      Just the same, I am glad they have, for the time being, given up on that effort.

      1. yeah, I read that too.  … the article was in a certain denver newspaper, so wasn’t sure how to work it into the post.  Best I could tell, the issue during the election was framed using vague notions of rig counts, but nobody really talked about what they really hated about the new rules.  … lots of sound and fury, but no substance.

        1. Most of the publicly demonstrated opposition to the new oil and gas rules was orchestrated and paid for by a privately funded local group (EIS, was it called?) which was connected with the Americans for American Energy organization which included Greg Schnacke, Jim Cole, and a bunch of Colorado boys who were supported by the Dark Lord, himself, Dick Cheney.

          Most industry execs kept quiet because there was little concern from them…it came mostly from the Republican Party and the O&G lobby.

          Here is a fact for you. Before the institution of the new rules, the average length of time it took to complete an APD (Application for a Permit to Drill) was 63 days. It is now 36 days. Sen-elect Steve King continues to lie about this to this day, as do many of his peers. But then, Sen. King is the most ill-informed legislator I have ever met.

          I wrote a column about the opposition to the rules entitled “the Tears on Carols’ Cheek” which appeared in the Grand Junction FreePress a couple of years ago. I am sure it is archived there, but if anyone is interested I can copy it here.  

  2. Colorado is not just at the bottom for higher ed funding, we’re there k-12 too.

    A23 doesn’t require increased K12 funding – it’s been decreased the past two years and will be again this upcoming session.

    1. In low 30s I believe.  A-23 did raise us a bit and protect us somewhat while recessions pulled other states down.

       

      Colorado — where mediocrity is an impossible dream.

        2. We spend less per captia as a percentage of income – like 48 or 49. (Thank god for Mississippi.)

          So we could spend more, but don’t.  We’re number #35! We’re #35!

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

64 readers online now

Newsletter

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