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
60%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
September 11, 2006 02:53 AM UTC
24 Comments
I don’t live anywhere near CD-6 but just opened up this weeks mail and have a mailing from TT for “a personal appeal for your support”. He says he has “a formidable opponent who still has $177,000 in the bank” …”much more than one would expect at this point in the race”. I thought conventional wisdom on this site was that Winter was nothing more than a mosquito on Tom “the Elephant” Tancredo’s behind. What’s up? Would someone enlighten me on what’s going on in CD-6?
For a movie that is supposed to be based off the 9/11-commission report, to not include a single 9/11 commissioner, anyone from the Bush (41), Clinton, or Current White House administrations, or those on the ground to consult on the factual content is an complete outrage.
I would rate this movie with two thumbs down.
Documentaries usually require fact, and to sell this as the official history is nothing more than an election year ploy. To forsake those who died on September 11 is un-patriotic and downright wrong.
This is the risk involved in the production of any so-called docu-drama. It’s a hybrid between fact and fiction. As a result, the production will be neither informative (which is what a factual documentary would be) nor entertaining (which is what fiction can do).
Of course the producers won’t interview people who may have actually known some of what was going on. The truth might not be as entertaining as fiction writers could possibly make it.
In a word, docu-dramas are generally crap.
Not interested in more of the BUSH admin’s corporate lovers lying for him. Can see that daily with Matthews or Carlson.
Watching Koppel on the Discovery Channel.
in seeing it but my wife still can’t stand to watch anything about 9/11. So I think we’ll watch “The Wire” instead.
I believe in being my own judge about such stuff. I hated all the religious protest surrounding “The Last Temptation of Christ” (remember that? I’m twice as old now as I was then) particularly because none of the protesters had seen the movie and therefore knew nothing about it. The shoe would truly be on the other foot if I refused to watch something for the same reason, namely because some politico said I shouldn’t.
Don’t forget to fly your flag tomorrow.
Partly because I dont have tv, but I also have read the 9/11 report, and if, from what I am hearing, it is like “A Million Little Pieces” a memoir that should be fiction than I dont care to see it.
This type of “docudrama” bothers me because it distorts facts, much like a Michael Moore docudrama (his only good piece was the one when he followed Fred Phelps). The Last Temptation of Christ bothered me because I cant stand religious films.
On the other hand I am an avid “the Wire” fan. Ive seen none of this season and after watching HBOs reup on it I am dying to know what is happening.
To give you a Roger Ebert impression, wouldn’t we have to watch it?
That’s as likely to happen as me watching a Disney movie at the theatre, going to Disneyland, or buying anything advertised on ABC.
Which is to say not bloody likely.
Does anybody else understand what HearingListener just posted? Or is it just me? What the hell are you talking about? Why don’t you buy anything from ABC or whatever?
Some choose to not give dollars to those who produce such crap as this. Corporate lackies, and historical revisionists do not deserve the financial support of those of us who want the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Especially when it coes to 9/11, and before what is arguably the most important election of my lifetime.
As posted on Gorky Lark I found the first 90 minutes both boring and frustrating. Here’s the relevant part of my review:
I finished watching 90 minutes of this “docudrama” and alternated between being bored and being frustrated, and will not watch any more of it. I was bored by the director’s and/or editor’s amateurish obsession with artsy framing shots of people’s lower eyelids and nostrils. And bored by the interminable “smoke filled office” scenes. I was frustrated by the obvious political message of the producers.
Although not as bad (in those first 90 minutes) as I feared, it was still pretty bad in places. At least twice, characters voiced the opinion that “this was a different kind of war” and that our Constitutional freedoms (i.e. freedom from warrentless searches) were preventing us from “catching bad guys” and were keeping us from being safe.
See my blog for what I think of that political message (hint: I think it’s a load of crap)
I would think that D’Andrea would be supporting Disney because they are the “Gay friendly” company. Guess Disney and ABC crossed a line with the beastiality crowd.
Great acting. Fast paced. I give it a solid ‘B’.
I, for one, am horrified that only 5 years after an event like 9/11 there is a TV show about it. It is still fresh in my mind and I need no reminders, real or fictional. There were some real documentaries about 9/11 on TV this weekend, and while they don’t disgust me, I still had to turn them off. What is the point of reliving the horror of that event once again?
I don’t care what political agenda the TV show creators are pushing… it could fit my policies and beliefs perfectly and I would still be aghast at the idea. I think that the people profiting from (politically or financially) and the people enjoying such a horrific spectacle should be ashamed of themselves.
Movies about events like this should at least wait until the situation is over. Although Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, the will of the American people to support Bush in his invasion of Iraq stemmed directly from our fear and anger from the event. Wait until our soldiers are home to start talking about events like they are history. They are still in Afghanistan and Iraq fighting and dying every day. Whether you support the war or not, it, and its catalyst (9/11) are not history yet.
I liked it kids.
Totally agree with “what?!”… Great acting, compelling story telling.
As to the political aspects… Oh please, Clinton was in the midst of a crisis of confidence when the CIA fingered Osama in Afghanistan. I was all in favor of burning President Bubba back then, but it is obvious that he had too much on his plate and the chance of Osama eating a bullet and causing an “international crisis” with the death of a disowned multi-millionaire (since he couldn’t run again, obviously he was hoping for a tip from Osama’s daddy) was just too much for the guy. Woulda, shoulda, coulda, life is hard, then you die.
I think all the hulla-balloo has to do with two things:
1. It totally under cuts the idea that 9-11 would not have happened if AlGore had won in 2000. The guy standing in front of the movie screen screaming “Clinton is Satan!” kinda takes the wind out of that argument. How much you want to bet he is revealed tomorrow to be one of the heavy hitters in Iraq?
2. The Clinton crew genuinely choked when they had a chance to take out Osama. Hell, they thought his name was Usama!
For those of you who think that this is a new “Fox News/Bush Admin/Focus on the Family” kind of read on life need to watch the Discovery and History Channels more often! Clinton not taking out Osama and Saddam when he had the chance has been a story line from time to time for a while.
What is all the controversy? That it is on network TV and not cable?
Anyhow, I like it. Let’s see how they handle the early Bush years tomorrow… He and his folks were reading a lot of Clancy back then, so they were more focused on China you know… I guess we’ll see who is screaming then huh?
It doesn’t “totally undercut” anything, or reveal anything. It is fiction. You can read the 9/11 commission report, and compare what was actually said in the report to what happened in the movie. You can read the response from people who were actually there. That will get you better facts that pretending the truth of a docu-drama.
For example, let’s look at the big “Clinton had a chance to take out Osama” scene where, apparently, the Clinton administration is portrayed as refusing the authority to continue with the operation. If you’d check real sources, you’d find that the details of the scene are not in the 9/11 commission report. You’d find that the film maker has admitted to ad libbing the scene, and claims artistic license. You’d learn that, in fact, the operation was called off by the director of the CIA because his agents in the field told him that they didn’t have the operational capacity to succeed.
This doesn’t mean the documentary is evil. It means the it is a work of fiction. It isn’t true. It isn’t supposed to be true. ABC is guilty for misleading marketing (“based on the 9/11 commission report”), and several producers are guilty for their obvious agenda. In the end, though, the big problem is that a bunch of morons can’t tell the difference between fact and fiction, and will confuse this movie with fact.
Now stop making me defend Clinton! I can’t stand the guy.
That was the best explanation anybody is going to hear of what this movie is all about.
Colorado.
is getting ready to revise media ownership rules. Those revisions (which had previously been proposed but defeated) would allow even more concentration of media ownership, meaning fewer and fewer Corporate types will control everything you read in a newspaper, see on television or listen to on radio.
If you like what Disney did with this or what Fox news does, you will undoubtedly like the ‘brave new world’ that is coming from this authoritarian administration.
These proposed rule changes are very dangerous to our already endangered democracy, yet there is no mention or discussion of this pending change in the media – Why?
GE, Disney and Viacom all want it. You won’t hear it discussed on any of their news programs. And that is the best evidence of the threat to our liberties that these types of policies represent.
is that “Family Guy”, “American Dad” and “The War at Home” were absolutely hilarious last night–and more realistic, I might add, than the tripe on ABC….
http://www.cnn.com/2…
as I also refuse to watch that Farenheit movie or Gore’s “The Sky Is falling” horror film.
Even though it is funny that the Dems were so worried that it would show them in a bad light that they tried to force ABC to cancel it.
Where is the outcry over that tactic?
I think there would be more outcry if the statements made in the farce they called “The Path to 9/11” weren’t so patently and willfully defamatory.
“Farenheit 9/11” might be provocative, biased, and even suggestively leading, but it didn’t portray things that never happened. And “An Inconvenient Truth” might simplify details, but in the main the conclusions it presents are considered likely scenarios based on scientific data.
“The Path to 9/11”, instead, relies on fictionalized events that go far beyond “composite” views of multiple happenings. Having Gen. Massoud and CIA personnel standing outside bin Laden’s hideout with sniper rifles trained while Sandy Berger tells the operatives that Clinton didn’t approve the operation is a complete, out-and-out lie on so many levels. Not one bit of that ever happened. The director, producer, screenwriter, and ABC executives knew with a certainty that it was all rubbish, and they still aired the program. That’s an open-and-shut case for a lawsuit, not a “tactic”. Even conservative pundits think it’s trash.
Yeah, I love that the conservative response to this is “What’s the big deal? Can’t the Democrats handle being portrayed in a bad light?”
It’s not that at all – as has been repeated endlessly here and elsewhere, it’s the fact that they blatantly distort the 9/11 report and well-documented facts, but are masquerading the docudrama as strictly factual.
If an avowed liberal wrote a script that emphasized Bush’s failings prior to and after 9/11 that contained obvious changes to the set of events on record, there would be a firestorm of conservative anger.
Nobody cares that it lays blame on Clinton – they do care that they’re lying about what happened.
American Airlines has sent a letter containing the word “lawsuit” in regards to ABC’s idiotic mischaracterization that AA allowed Mohammed Atta on board after he was flagged as a “no fly” by their computers.
Bill Clinton also sent a follow-up letter that sounds an awful lot like “you’ll be hearing from us in court”, after giving ABC the benefit of the doubt and taking them at their word because “no-one ha[d] seen the final film”. Well, now they’ve seen the first part, and it still defames multiple members of the Clinton administration (Clinton’s lawyer’s word choice…).