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%
December 14, 2010 10:48 PM UTC
37 Comments
Democrats love the constitution!
Took a while for me to realize how much we love it 😉
But your modesty and graciousness are duly noted, Ari. 😉
Or skip it because you know your wacky ideas would not pass. I think the constitution has been changed quite a few times since 1789.
n/t
Can I add or change a word in your quote? Add liberals or switch liberals with pets. It becomes a much more powerful and convincing statement.
This is NOT a new political Party
Just a resource, for activists, to gather analysis and reasoning
Gay Marriage and pathways of citizenship for immigrants are unlikely to pass, unless we argue on the basis of Constitutional theory, not emotion
Party-wise, I remain a proud Democrat
I will admit to having suspected you’d eventually join us, following a pattern of perpetual mistreatment by the Republican party despite loyal and generous efforts to support Republican candidates. Someday they may learn that bigoted campaign rhetoric drives away people who share their fiscal values.
Welcome, and please bring your friends along, too! I bet there are plenty of social progressives lurking in the rear seats with disgusted expressions at Republican committee meetings, no? Real Conservatives have too much fiscal discipline to let a little biblical literalism stand between business and the revenues brought in by gay weddings, or to turn away a skilled capitalist who wants to work and pay taxes just because he comes from another country.
Good luck with this campaign and its laudable goals.
(I will say, however, you desperately need a better web designer. There’s got to be one lurking around here who supports your cause.)
I have many Republican friends who are saying “yeah, you were a liberal all along” – lol
I’m very happy with the design – simple and to the point – we’re just putting text out there
Of special note – my sister drew the logo
In Chrome, though, it shows up left-justified in the top banner and the background version of it doesn’t show at all. I wonder if my browser just isn’t rendering the page as intended.
You’re a big reason why I’m a Democrat and why I started this
That’s pretty cool. Thanks.
Some of us thought blogwhoring was discouraged even in a non-promoted diary.
was that the link had to have something to do with the story, which in Ali’s case it does.
We don’t mind linking to other blogs (even your own), so long as there is a relevance and purpose behind it.
What we don’t permit is something like this:
That’s an interesting comment. You should check out my blog at http://www.MyBlog.com.
?? Yep, sounds like this diary.
Purpose: To get a link promoted to the front page.
It’s a good cause and all, but not FP-worthy IMO. Then again, nobody elected me to decide. 🙁
That’s why I oppose them.
Granted, some would say our system ain’t much different, but I’m a stickler for formalism.
for taking a stand, Ali!
Your feedback on the other groups helped tremendously – I think this group has a major role to play!
You’re awesome. Thanks for doing this and putting your passion and resources toward something so valuable. Welcome to the (lil) tent, my friend.
And it feels wonderful to be home!
Thank you always for your kind words!
Obviate the need to ask by shouting the answer from the
roofblogtops 24×7. Is sexual orientation really a basis for a political movement? How on earth does it tie into immigration reform, which is pretty clearly an economic issue, even if some unenlightened ignoramus would distort it by passing it through the lens of racism.Ali’s idea is awesome all right, but not exactly in the way La Cronk meant it.
(Yes, that’s his real voice, not a recording.)
You mean every time I hit “play” he has to start singing again? Cool! What’ll they think of next? Can only gay aliens do this?
What makes it even more amazing is that he died of AIDS of in 1983, one of the first noted casualties.
Something to think about on the 219th anniversary of the adoption of the Bill of Rights.
Are some things the Founding Fathers (hallowed by thy names) wrote more sacred than other things they wrote?
For example, Article 5?
The document continues with some stipulations that certain types of changes to the Constitution were not acceptable until 20 years had passed.
In other words, The Founding Fathers (blessed be thy names) suggested their collective “original intents” should be adhered to for, at best, 20 years.
Here’s what I had with my morning constitutional today:
From my man, TommyJ (blessed is the fruit of thy quill) in a letter to SammyK, back in 1816.
Welcome to the party that wants to move forward, Ali.
I was under the impression that the “no change for 20 years” clause applied to one, and only one, type of change:
Not for 20 years could Congress interfere with the slave trade.
Any other “no changes” that you can name?
Of course, when the time came–more like 70 years later, not 20–the Constitution proved no match for devotion to Slavery, or even the hint that a sorta-maybe-pro-abolitionist President was in office.
When people start leaning on the Constitution, a document that made sure to protect one and only one institution–slavery–that to me is a sure sign of just how much trouble this country is in!
But it appears you have forgotten that on January 1, 1808, the first day allowed by the Constitution, Congress did prohibit the international slave trade (although, as your correctly point out, they did little about actual slavery in the US).
As for other “certain types of changes” I am referring, of course, to the 4th clause in the 9th Section of the 1st Article.
The first clause very specifically referred to the slave trade. The fourth clause meant to insure that in case of any tax based on population, slaves would count as (only) six-tenths of a person as they did for determining representation in the House.
Both sections, plus the structure of the Senate, show just how central slavery was to the Holy Writ of the Land of the Free as written by the Founding Fathers! Enough already with this beatification of Madison or any others who contributed to the document and it’s (temporarily) immutable clauses.
[Since we seemed to be talking about the Constitution, acts passed (with however little impact on the institution of slavery) in 1808 didn’t seem relevant, no.]