U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) David Seligman
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) J. Danielson
(R) Sheri Davis
50%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Trisha Calvarese
(D) Eileen Laubacher
90%
20%
20%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
May 17, 2011 12:33 AM UTC
55 Comments
Why’d he have to leave the Post editorial page to do that?
If you are going to deceive, you might as well get paid for it.
Is Vincent really “moderate, mainstream and non-partisan?”
As long as you’re not talking about organized labor. Vince is as right as they come on everything.
Singleton’s idea of centrist. And lets face it. Nowadays, in general, Centrist means hard right but not a total raving loon. The far right of the 60s, best characterized by Barry Goldwater, would be just barely right enough to escape the RINO appellation today. At least there was no suggestion of Mike Rosen. Won’t miss Haley.
Barry Goldwater is a Libertarian.
Or did you forget that little book he wrote, “The Conscience of a Conservative.”
Oh, and by the way, Barry “isn’t” anything. He’s been dead for 13 years, this month.
So it is that Conservatism, throughout history, has regarded man neither as a potential pawn of other men, nor as a part of a general collectivity in which the sacredness and the separate identity of individual human beings are ignored. Throughout history, true Conservatism has been at war equally with autocrats and with “democratic” Jacobins. The true Conservative was sympathetic with the plight of the hapless peasant under the tyranny of the French monarchy. And he was equally revolted at the attempt to solve that problem by a mob tyranny that paraded under the banner of egalitarianism. The conscience of the Conservative is pricked by anyone who would debase the dignity of the individual human being. Today, therefore, he is at odds with dictators who rule by terror, and equally with those gentler collectivists who ask our permission to play God with the human race.
With this view of the nature of man, it is understandable that the Conservative looksupon politics as the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of the social order. The Conservative is the first to understand that the practice of freedom requires the establishment of order: it is impossible for one man to be free if another is able to deny him the exercise of his freedom. But the Conservative also recognizes that the political power on which order is based is a self-aggrandizing force; that its appetite grows with eating. He knows that the utmost vigilance and care are required to keep political power within its proper bounds.
In our day, order is pretty well taken care of. The delicate balance that ideally exists between freedom and order has long since tipped against freedom practically everywhere on earth. In some countries, freedom is altogether down and order holds absolute sway. In our country the trend is less far advanced, but it is well along and gathering momentum every day. Thus, for the American Conservative, there is no difficulty in identifying the day’s overriding political challenge: it is to preserve and extend freedom. As he surveys the various attitudes and institutions and laws that currently prevail in America, many questions will occur to him, but the Conservative’s first concern will always be: Are we maximizing freedom? I suggest we examine some of the critical issues facing us today with this question in mind.
http://press.princeton.edu/cha…
Or you just dig copying and pasting?
It is pointless to mention Goldwater in this context.
Pointless to mention he’s also dead? Jesus, you’re a trip.
Goldwater is dead? Why are you such a consummate prick!
Nobody will be talking about you 100 years after you die or even 5 minutes, yet here we are talking about Goldwater and will forever be. His legacy will forever live in Arizona, The United States and Globally, unless a natural disaster or nuclear war destroys the many tributes built to honor this great man!
You are such a prick; you do not even recognize greatness.
Yes, he’s dead. As in physically, he is no mas. That’s what I meant by dead. As in wormbait. Not as in his ideas are dead.
Jesus, I realize things get lost in translation when communicating via blog but you are taking non-comprehension to brand new heights of glory.
He is still alive however in an altered state.
Most of us just flat out die, never to be rembered.
You see today’s right as being far less free than the 60’s Goldwater Right.
Maybe so. Maybe so.
Today I see both party’s trying to destroy me. One wants my values the other wants my money. Together they are fucking me royally!
Can we focus on today and the near future?
Who is your ideal Dan Haley replacement?
Do you think they will replace him? Who you thinking?
I’m wondering if they will replace Haley at all, considering their budgetary woes.
I would prefer a balanced opinion page. Something for everyone.
The post needs Libertarian thought. Anarchocapitalism and Minarchism. It currently has enough authoritarian BS to make your head spin.
But when he rises, who will be the lucky 11 to join you as apostles?
(While I’m of course joking, it’s sad rather than funny that you sound like a deranged cult member worshipping the eternal life of the Dear Leader.)
This all started because my reference to Goldwater in presence tense rather than past tense, so what. You frigging argueaholics are trying to back me into a corner, as to discredit my total existence. I know how you jerkaholics operate. It takes a real anal mofo to make a big deal of my slip. MOR had no point so he resorted to ad hominem and semantics. We have since sorted out our miscommunication and now are deliberating the best replacement for Dan Haley. Care to offer suggestion as to replacement?
There are no more apostles and never will be, now go convince the Mormons of this and leave me alone.
This is not an argument.
No it ISN’T! Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
This isn’t like you at all.
“Argueholics”
“Jerkaholics”
“anal mofo”
These are no doubt just terms of endearment you borrowed from Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason.” But why didn’t you attribute them;-)
But thanks for the new sig line!!!
best. sig line. eva!
“In 1974, as an elder statesman of the party, Goldwater successfully urged President Richard Nixon to resign when evidence of a cover-up in the Watergate scandal became overwhelming and impeachment was imminent. By the 1980s, the increasing influence of the Christian right on the Republican Party so conflicted with Goldwater’s libertarian views that he became a vocal opponent of the religious right on issues such as gay rights and the role of religion in public life.[4]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B…
He would never be considered anywhere near conservative enough today where he was considered the epitome of staunch, rock ribbed conservatism back in the 60s and 70s. The entire definition of what it means to be conservative, centrist, etc. has radically changed.
I don’t know about you, Mark, but I was around then and I know that Goldwater was clearly labeled “conservative”. In fact his being too conservative for the main stream and the whole you can’t trust him not to cause a nuclear holocaust thing was the entire basis of the campaign against him when he ran for president. You can call him libertarian now, if you like, but he was definitely called conservative and adored by others who called themselves conservatives throughout his political career.
Conservative means to protect status quo.
As status quo changes, the definition of conservative changes.
Was he considered a conservative in his day? He very much was. I was there, little dude. I heard all the carrying on about how he was too conservative for main stream America. Look it up, child, before you tell me what I don’t know about Goldwater.
And back then, liberal wasn’t a dirty word and there actually was such a thing as being too conservative, even for Republicans. Heck, there was even a such thing as being too thin. There also was such a thing as liberal Republicans. Eisenhower described himself as liberal and Republicans of the day, along with many Dems, liked Ike just fine.
You are completely ignoring my point that definitions of what constitutes right, left and center have changed radically. So have the values attached to terms like conservative, moderate and liberal. Why don’t you try defining what conservative meant in the Goldwater era? Or what Republican meant, for that matter?
Are actually reggressives? Because I have to see any Repub stand for ‘status quo” and instead push for every social and fiscal repeal they can get their grubby mits on.
From protecting civil rights, women’s choice and economic security of the middle class the entire GOP platform is taking things all the way back to the turn of the century. About as far from status quo that you can get!
just sayin’
Meaning conservatives constantly fail, as they’re dragged kicking and screaming into modernity.
I often toyed with the idea that Haley might be H-Man.
Go get him, MADCO.
of trying. If, however, H man would send his $50 to Voyeageur, I will publicly acknowledge the honesty and integrity, without naming names.
He claimed the check was in the mail, about five months ago.
uber-corporate flack to replace theis total toady.
Haley was barely to the left of Rosen.
Good riddance to a creepy phony.
I enjoyed Dan’s writing.
the piece he wrote not long ago in which he gushed like a tween girl about Ronald Reagan’s hair. It was nauseating.
I feel nauseous in the recollection of what he wrote.
How do Pollsters define left? You use the word a lot and claim everyone is to the right. What is left?
Haley was at the Post and then he left.
Left = done gone
know get a ump onf fundraising?
You had a good home and you left
YOU’RE RIGHT
Julie was there when you left
YOU’RE RIGHT
Now she’s someone else’s wife, and you’ll be married the rest of your life.
(Army marching song, which helps define left.)
It is a shame you cannot define your politics.
Once you earn some respect, we’ll take you seriously. Until then, we’re either ignoring you or toying with you; interpreting that as an unwillingness or inability to answer your questions will only underscore that you’re a person not to be taken seriously.
Great non answer, I expected as much.
Keep expecting it, til you’re ready to eat at the grownup table.
Seriously- you will now be the fifth or sixth anti-L poster who has challenged others to define their politics. If you reply, you will be the first.
If you do it during my reign, i will front page it.
ground rules:
– no ideological one-liners without meaningful explanation
– no painfully long videos
– serious attempt to explain the role of gov’t, especially federal, but other levels ok
– and how that role of gov’t should be funded ? (how to tax, how to authorize and appropriate, the appropriate civic role for citizens, etc)
If you want to expand on to the relative value of the parties, American exceptionalism, and Sino-US realtions in the 21st c. and beyond, go for it.
If you need a start point:
When is it ethically and morally appropriate for the US Congress to raise taxes?