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
52%↑
48%↓
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
December 14, 2010 03:24 AM UTC
51 Comments
I am disgusted with the way this shook out and the way it is being sold.
I’d like to see the Democrats we elected stand up and be counted. On something.
“This chamber is, for the most part, silent — ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing. We stand passively mute in the United States Senate.”
— Senator Robert Byrd, before the 2003 Irag invasion
Especially his salute to his staff at the very end.
There are few plane crashes that pain me more.
that and Lynyrd Skynyrd’s
Other times he actually said, on the Senate floor, that the US should be paying for the war (s) as they occur.
Doesn’t he know that we want lower taxes and higher spending – and we deserve it as long as we can get it?
his most loyal supporters are not happy about the continued tax cuts for the rich? I wrote to him yesterday about the firefighter’s bill. (I have a personal limit of one cranky letter per week per legislator. It’s usually Mike Coffman who earns them.)
I am not under any illusions that the result would have been different, but I am disappointed that the President and our elected Democrats do not seem to have been able to adequately lay out the policy issues facing the country.
Before simply agreeing to what Republicans want, it seems important to make clear to the American people that Republicans insisted that not a single important thing would happen until tax cuts for the top 1% were extended. Not tax cuts for the middle class. Not a START treaty that every top general and living Republican secretary of state and defense seems to support. Nothing.
Before simply agreeing to what Republicans want, it seems important to show the American people what tax cuts for the rich will and will not do. For example, one thing they will not do is stimulate the economy (see 2001-2009).
Before simply agreeing to what Republicans want, it seems like someone could put current tax rates into historical context for the American people, showing, for example, that current tax rates are materially lower than they were even under President Reagan. And Reagan didn’t have two wars going on, among other things.
Before simply agreeing to what Republicans want, it seems like you could make the case that Republican leaders’ first post-election act was to insist that the country enact legislation that would add nearly a trillion dollars to the debt.
I am a Democrat and I support the President, but there is something surreal about the last couple of weeks. The main message one could potentially take is that our President and Democratic leaders are indeed weak and seem unable to lay out the policy choices in any simple way, much less in a way that shows Republican elected officials for what they are.
Again, I am not naГЇve enough to believe that the result on this particular issue would be any different, but I am naГЇve enough to think that when we elect Democrats, we should expect them to effectively show the policy choices upon which the other guys are insisting and forcing on the country so that everyone’s taxes don’t all go up. Having elected Democrats do that much would be a small, good thing.
the bully pulpit was for.
That is just too funny.
His mentor, Phil Anchutz could have warned you, but even if he would have, you wouldn’t have paid attention.
You may be sorry you drank so much of the Bennet-Obama Kool Aid.
It must be nice to swim in your purist soup.
So, I guess Andy “It takes only one senator” Romanoff would have made all the difference? I know for a fact that Ken Buck wouldn’t have helped. So, spare us your indignation. You are simply irrelevant.
AND WE NEARLY BEAT OBAMA & BENNET(won by only about 15,500 votes).
Where will your ConservaDems be
IF in coming elections
there are 2 of us?
or 20?
or 200?
or 2,000?
We will work a lot harder next time if our Washington representatives don’t soon start working more for average families than the rich and corporations.
Irrelevant? Hardly.
Romanoff made a career out of forging bipartisan coalitions in Colorado. Bennet is reluctantly going along with the President, but Romanoff used to go out of his way to make sure Republicans got what they wanted and Democrats were protected from taking potentially hard political stances–see: special session on immigration.
You’re delusional. For many reasons. The most glaring of those being that you rail against one Blue Dog while opining on the ludicrous write-in campaign that you waged for another.
And he had a strong record.
Bennet had zip. He was unknown to Dem voters.
At least Romanoff recognized the seriousness of the problems and and appeared willing to move left on some issues if it was required to get solutions that worked for the average family.
Guaranteed that we will hold him to that stance when next he runs for office.
“Romanoff was moving to the Left on Healthcare and other key issues.”
He was trying to move to the left because he was never all the way on the left. Romanoff’s record was never that of a liberal champion. We’re not saying that’s good or bad — the point is that you can’t re-write history to make Romanoff out to be more liberal than he was as a reason to oppose Michael Bennet. We said the same thing during the Primary campaign. Romanoff and Bennet were never all that different on policy.
Huge difference.
Bennet “pretended” to be for the easier win but didn’t even fight for that.
While Romanoff put it all on the line (including his house)
for SINGLE PAYER.
oops…there you go with the BOLD again.
Sorry to Polsters. I blame myself.
a tremendously practical lesson “on compromise.”
I remember Romanoff giving a speech for Single Payer at a rally in March of 2009. I also remember going to hundreds of other rallies, town halls, protests, and meetings on health care in 2009 and he was nowhere to be seen. If he cared so much about giving Colorado health care, he sure didn’t show it after he stopped being paid to give speeches.
I admire Andrew’s current work overseas. I admire much of his past work as Speaker — he negotiated with both sides all the time and was known for being just left of center. To make his career in CO more left than it was, does not work. Sorry.
You took the strokes right off of my keyboard.
You choose.
He still has a 90% record on voting with the Dems. I still think he had a better shot at a state-wide race than Romanoff. I still respect both men. I still do not think of either as super-heroes, nor have I ever agreed with either of them 100% of the time. Seems you don’t really read what I write, John.
At yesterday’s press conference, President Obama stated that each side had to “sacrifice” for the compromise to be reached. This is exactly the misstatement of what this “compromise” is about that I am discussing in this diary. This is the first time I’ve seen President Obama try to justify not doing the right thing. It’s one thing to justify the trillion dollar giveaway because the overall result is good for the country. It’s another to try and convince us that this is a “sacrifice”.
I was on an OFA conference call a couple of weeks ago. They broke us out into groups of about 20-30 callers from across the country. Even though the topic was supposed to be the 2010 election, everyone wanted to express how disappointed they were in the wealthy tax cuts extension.
You and I know, Nancy how critical it is to have true supporters working on a campaign. Compromising your principles is not the way to keep them in your camp when the next election rolls around.
re: “This is the first time I’ve seen President Obama try to justify
not doing the right thing”
… negotiating … and “compromise” is an inherent part of the very idea of “negotiating”–is no longer possible. At the moment, Republicans seem to interpret the Nov. elections as a mandate to go for the whole magilla, which makes mockery of the idea of negotiating anything.
But it also makes mockery of our “representative democracy.” The name of the game in D.C. Is to manipulate the rules in order to “win,” assuming, I guess, that “the people” are bored, inattentive, programmed to react per Everyday Cliches, or otherwise out of the loop. Far from being the best time to get something done, the lame duck session is just the opposite: winners are feeling their oats, and figure the voters have tuned out for two years.
In this context, “win” means achieving as much as possible for the narrow portion of the population that bought the election.
All things considered, seems to me that Obama got as much as could be expected by preserving at least some benefits for the middle class. Were the really threatening trends addressed? No. And I’m afraid they won’t be addressed over the next two years, either. We face a whole range of problems that have risen to crisis proportions, but our bought-and-paid-for “representatives” have been unable for the past two or three decades to take effective action. The evidence isn’t just in one tax bill; it’s in 30 years of shifting wealth, failure to address energy and environmental problems, failing education, deindustrialization, and sticking to the notion that WW2-type military might is going to preserve the virtual empire.
HOWEVER, let no one hint that the system we are using supposedly to address these problems is worn out, outdated, or flawed in light of changes over the past 220 years! What changes? I dunno.
That’s what concerns me. We have a habit in this country of failing to make the hard choice and praising leaders who give us what we want, not what we need. Consider how Ronald Reagan is thought to be a great president by some (I’ll always call it National Airport, not Reagan Airport). Yet, all he did was cut taxes and create a huge deficit.
My main point in this diary is not the wealthy tax cuts. It’s how even President Obama is now playing the same game of kicking our problems down the road. I don’t see much hope for our country.
Perhaps we are looking at the situation rather differently. By-elections like Nov. ’10 notwithstanding, I question whether our electoral system reflects “the will of the people.” A majority may or may not prefer one course of action or another — and be willing to pay any price, bear any burden to achieve it — but what happens in the halls of Congress is a thing unto itself. I won’t bother repeating my earlier screeds about the misrepresentation of the U.S. Senate (1:32=1:0.5), or Congressional districts drawn for the benefit of incumbents. Certainly we can agree that the unending propaganda paid for by the far right, courtesy of Rupert Murdoch, and the seeming intellectual laziness and pig ignorance of many, many people isn’t helping us in the least. And so time marches on — towards what I shudder to contemplate.
It’s always troubled me that most of any campaign’s efforts are directed to just get people to vote. So, when you talk about a majority wanting something, it’s really a majority of the small percentage of actual voters. That’s why I feel this country will get what it deserves when so many can’t even be bothered to vote.
I agree that non-voters get what they deserve.
The unfortunate thing about democracy is that we also get what they deserve …
“achieving as much as possible for
the narrow portion of the population
that bought the election.”
Please just go back to never never land.
Voters elected Obama and Bennet trusting that they are men of their word and would Fight For Change for the voters that elected them, Not Work For The Opposition.
We elected them to make lives better for average American families, not the rich or corporations.
It is unbelievable that Obama, with control of the House and Senate couldn’t pass an unemployment extension prior to the election, without having to give away billions to the wealthy in tax cuts and estate tax giveaways.
This from a guy that was against the Bush tax cuts. TAX CUTS IN WARTIME? Asinine.
Our family will struggle a bit more if we have to revert back to the pre Bush tax levels, but we we gladly pay if it keeps ConservaDems from having an excuse to cut Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and a host of other needed programs.
Anyone paying attention to Bennet’s flip flops knew he’d do something like this.
It is time for a Presidential Primary.
And in 6 years, a Senate Primary if Bennet doesn’t mend his ways
.
We could start by asking them to “pledge” to support the issues in our Party Platform as a condition of our support.
Since when did you vote for Bennet? Thought you were writing in Romanoff’s name.
How’d that work out for you in November, by the way? Refresh my memory, won’t you?
Obama Stole Colorado Dems 2010 Senate Primary Nomination for “appointed” Sen. Michael Bennet but 57,497 “UnderVotes” by angry Romanoff progressives nearly Stopped them.(We promise you we will work harder next time.)
If our Washington Dems don’t soon start working for average Americans, those same Americans will start organizing against them.
Jesus, get a fucking job, dude. Or are you even employable in your current mental state?
Dude!
Must sound good to you. Not to me.
Well, not the Senate since Ted Kennedy died, and arguably not ever if we have to count Lieberman and Ben Nelson as “Democrats.” The notion that 51 votes comprises control of the Senate is just not the case, as you know; it is, however, a Republican propaganda point (I heard it most recently from Cantor of VA) suggesting that Obama coulda/shoulda done any and everything he wanted since Democrats “controlled the White House3 and both houses of Congress.” Not so, and we shouldn’t be perpetuating that Untruth for any reason.
As for Bennett, did he flip-flop? I seem to recall that one of his first stops after being appointed was to a certain townhouse in D.C. where Jane Norton had been the night before (metaphorically) picking up envelopes given to good little boys and girls who acknowledged that more moola means more votes. The fact that he won the primary didn’t make him a Democrat. The only about Bennett that’s blue is and was where he came from: out of the blue. Just ’cause someone votes for a candidate doesn’t mean that voter likes or supports that candidate.
True enough: “The fact that he won the primary didn’t make him a Democrat.
The only about Bennett that’s blue is and was where he came from: out of the blue.”
I just received this from Al Franken. At least he’s not insulting our intelligence by trying to say that both sides “sacrificed”.
A lot of people are unhappy that the President punted on first down, and I’m one of them. Extending the Bush tax breaks for the super-wealthy will explode our deficit over the next two years without doing anything to help our economy. It’s bad policy.
But for Minnesota’s middle class, struggling to get by in a tough economy, there’s a lot in this bill that will really help: tax cuts for working families, a payroll tax holiday, energy tax credits, and the extension of Recovery Act initiatives that are already making a difference.
And for the Minnesotans truly suffering right now-men, women, and children on the edge of economic disaster-the alternative is simply unacceptable. If we let Republicans block unemployment benefits, even temporarily, there will be a lot more pain for working families, a lot more homeless kids spending Christmas in a shelter or a car.
If this is the prelude of a permanent extension of the Bush tax breaks for the super-wealthy, we’re in big trouble. We’ll lose our ability to make the investments we need to grow our way out of long-term budget deficits: education, infrastructure, and research and development. And I am taking the President at his word that he will fight harder to put an end to these wasteful tax breaks in 2012 than he did in 2010.
This isn’t a great deal by any stretch of the imagination. But I got into this line of work because I wanted to stand up for Minnesota families trying to put food on the table and build a better life for their kids. And, for them, the only thing worse than a bad deal would be no deal at all. That’s why I voted yes yesterday-and why I will continue my fight for economic policies that create jobs, address our deficit problem, and build new opportunities for Minnesota.
All the best,
Al
Franken did a very nice job with this.
Punting on first down captures what exactly what i have been feeling.
No they’re not. I don’t think they particularly care one way or the other, but maintaining unemployment benefits in a recession is something Republicans traditionally go along with, except for the total whackjobs.
They said they’d block unemployment benefits because they expected the Democrats to cave on it. The Republicans didn’t give up anything to get this bill. Not one thing.
Our country’s so screwed.
so that seems um kind of like a big uh deal. Rich pay their fair share? Ring a bell? They also gave up a dedicated revenue source for social security, as well as taxing estates.
People WANT to soak the rich, who had tons of special favors for a decade and still haven’t given the rest of us back anything when we really need it. Reinstituting taxes on the rich that were in place not that long ago is an overwhelmingly popular position, and the Democrats gave up their most potent contrast with Republicans to get this deal. Who now thinks the Democratic party is the one that sticks up for the little guy?
Democrats got nothing they wanted. (Unemployment benefits are a national necessity.) The proper analogy is not to a kitchen or a TV (nice gender stereotyping there), but rather to one spouse who wants a new big-screen TV and a Playstation 3, and the other spouse who wants to pay the mortgage.
1) “Spouse” is gender neutral. Nothing in my post suggested otherwise. I guess you must have the problem of gender stereotyping.
2)Democrats “got” middle class tax cuts and SS tax cuts. I agree completely that what the Dems wanted will have a stimulative effect and what the GOP wanted will not. But, every item in the package is pain free. We have not reached bipartisanship, nor has anyone had to accept higher taxes or lower spending. Suggesting otherwise by anyone is horse-pucky. The hard choices are down the road, still.
because it helps weaken Social Security. It replaced the “Making work pay” credit, except it’s tilted more toward wealthier people and will require a whole new battle when it “expires” (if it ever really does).
And the middle-class tax cut was something everyone claimed to want.
And I don’t agree with you that either of those things will be stimulative. (Democrats should have fought for stuff that was stimulative, but none of that is in this package.)
Any chance this fictional household can get their kids to pay for the tv, the kitchen, the tennis spa and some other stuff?
Or even the grandkids?
Afterall the kids and grand kids will be inheriting this stuff some day, why shouldn’t they be responsible?
BTW – Where are the teabaggers? I thought they would have been especially upset about adding a trillion dollars to the deficit when we give non-stimulative tax breaks to the wealthy. I guess Dick Armey, as their puppet master, knows that the money behind the teabaggers is coming from the ultra-wealthy, so it’d be uncouth for him to bite the hand that feeds him.
He’s on my side- lower taxes, same or higher spending, esp if the spending is for war, or subsidies for the
richjob-creators.Any chance this fictional household can get their kids to pay for the tv, the kitchen, the tennis spa and some other stuff?
Or even the grandkids?
Afterall the kids and grand kids will be inheriting this stuff some day, why shouldn’t they be responsible?