U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

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) Somebody

90%

10%

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

50%

40%↑

30%

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
October 14, 2006 03:05 PM UTC

Weekend Open Thread

  • 68 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

24 days and a wake-up.

Comments

68 thoughts on “Weekend Open Thread

  1. Did yall see the Rocky Mountain News little biography on Ritter?  I think it makes Ritter look pretty good, makes him look like he really wanted to run a positive campaign, it seems pretty similar to the Post one a while back.  Can’t wait to see the Beauprez one next week…

  2. For those that don’t remember, my mom is the Republican candidate for Senate in Hawaii. (Yes I’m a Democrat – my parents raised us to think for ourselves and being a caring and logical kind of person of course I ended up a Democrat .)

    Anyways, on election day the last of the “competitive” Senate seats are in the central time zone (Missouri). When polls close there it is only 2:00 in Hawaii.

    There have been no polls yet for the Hawaii race as my mom was the replacement candidate appointed 3 weeks ago. But the response she is getting is really good. She is an amazingly good campaigner and has a very good read on how people respond.

    So, Hawaii which normally is ignored on the national scene may have everyone’s attention on Election day as control of the Senate is determined there. And the polls don’t close there until 11:00 pm Colorado time so we’ll all be up very very late in that case.

        1. Bernie?  He is crying the blues.  The 527’s have exposed his terrible voting record and now he is going to lose an election.  I told you they would pour it on in the end.

          If it wasn’t for such a strong candidate in Bob Caskey – the 527’s would have to spend an extra billion to defeat Bernie.  But as it is they only need to spend a million or so!

          A drop in the bucket to defeat a slime like Bernie.

          1. My friends over at the Sentinel have a very different take.  Let’s make it a bet:  Caskey wins and I’ll buy the drinks at Thunder Mountain .. Bernie wins and the drinks are on you.  Deal?

    1.   Aren’t the Hawaii Republicans somewhat moderate-conservatives and not like some of the freaks we have around here (i.e., Tancredo, Musgrave, Lamborn, Lundborg, Welker, Schltheis)? 

      1. As a state rep she almost always was to the left of the Democratic candidate that ran against her. And in the Senate race she will probably get the Sierra Club endorsement.

        You have to keep in mind that Hawaii is different from the mainland. And that the Democrats have been in power so long that they are by and large very corrupt.

        And here’s a little Hawaii humor for all of you:

      1. I didn’t think of that – I’m in the picture. Oh-oh.

        I’m to my mom’s left – the one with the goatee is my little brother. My gorgeous wife is to my left.

        And yes my neck is cocked weird – I had cancer and they had to remove a muscle in my neck. Everything works fine but it always looks weird in pictures.

        thanks – dave

  3. Ok, quick guess – which meltdown am I refering to? THere’s quite a few that seem to be doing everything they can to lose.

    My pick today – Angie Paccione where the layout is lousy and the text link to her video is broken.

    With that said, the ad (you can get it by clicking on the picture) is good. Very good message. And Angie is a good (not great) speaker. It’s hurt by mediocre camera work and piss-poor editing. But the message is good.

    Now, get out a video that slams MM, fix your website (1 major message and 3 – 4 minor messages with no need to scroll the screen), etc.

    There’s still a chance (I hope, I hope). But stop making mistakes.

  4. I posted on this when the story first came up; Karen ‘Literally’ Crummy taking her talking points directly from her old friend Cinnamin Watson. 

    But this came up today and, well, it’s just right on.

    From http://www.rockymoun… 

    Salzman: Post’s Ritter story a shameful deceit

    Misleading interview tactics, failure to prove wrongdoing kept news value low

    ‘I’d rather not talk to you,” Denver Post reporter Karen Crummy told me Wednesday when I called to discuss her Oct. 1 story headlined, “Ritter helped immigrants stay.”
    That’s awfully hypocritical, coming from a reporter, I told her.

    “I don’t want to talk about it,” she said.

    Anything she says “can be taken certain ways,” Crummy told me, and referred me to her editors.

    If I were Crummy, I wouldn’t want to defend the article either, because I’d be ashamed of it.

    But I’d talk about it anyway. It’s part of her job.

    Crummy’s front-page piece focused on 152 plea bargains negotiated between Bill Ritter’s district attorney’s office and immigrants, allowing them to “plead guilty to trespassing on agricultural land instead of the crimes they were actually accused of” and, at least in some cases, avoid deportation.

    Crummy’s tactics in reporting the article make all journalists look bad.

    If you’re a reporter, you want to be straightforward with the people you interview, so that they can respond directly to the issues involved – and you can report their answers in the proper context.

    But in reporting the Ritter piece, Crummy apparently played “gotcha” journalism, and the article suffered for it.

    Crummy interviewed two sources quoted in the article without telling them what she was working on – and later printed their comments accurately but without proper context.

    In paragraph three of her story, Crummy wrote that former Denver District Attorney Norm Early “laughed” when he heard about the agricultural trespass plea bargain, making it appear that Early disapproved of Ritter’s use of the plea.

    In fact, Early told me he has no problem with the plea, even though he hadn’t heard of it before.

    During her one-and-a-half minute interview with Early, Crummy didn’t tell him what she was investigating and why, according to Early.

    “[Crummy’s] intent was to get my name in there, and have it look negative toward Ritter,” said Early.

    Crummy treated Jeff Joseph, an immigration attorney also quoted in the article, the same way.

    Joseph told me that Crummy claimed to be writing a “general article about immigration and crime.”

    “I don’t mind that she has an angle,” said Joseph. “But tell me, and let me respond to it.”

    Not only were the tactics used in reporting the Ritter piece flawed, but the piece was overplayed on Page 1 of the Sunday Post.

    The “agricultural trespass” plea sounds unusual, for sure, but Republican and Democratic prosecutors have said that it’s standard procedure to allow defendants to plead guilty to crimes that aren’t factually related to the charges they face. Any illegal immigrant who enters into a plea bargain is subject to deportation.

    Ritter told the Post that he used the trespass plea to get the toughest convictions possible, given the evidence and resources available.

    By the Post’s deadline, Ritter had not provided evidence proving that he had done this in the cases cited by the Post.

    Still, it was up to the Post to prove Ritter did something wrong in the cases cited, like letting immigrants off easy, if the Post was going to make a big deal out of the story.

    Because the Post failed to do this, the news value of the story was low – especially because the agricultural trespass plea is commonly used across the state, and you see it more in Denver because there are more drug crimes here, according to Joseph.

    “The Post article didn’t ask the critical questions,” said Joseph. “Why were the pleas offered? Why were they accepted?”

    I asked Post Assistant Managing Editor Chuck Murphy why he thought the Ritter article was newsworthy.

    He said it was newsworthy because Ritter’s office constructed plea bargains using the unusual agricultural trespass statute for crimes in an urban area, specifically to allow legal and illegal immigrants to stay in the country.

    He added that Ritter has now had two weeks to show what justified the plea bargains. If Ritter provides such proof, he’ll run another article.

    With the election coming, journalists should treat negative stories about candidates with even more restraint than they would normally.

    The Post overplayed this story, possibly making voters think, for no reason, that Ritter wasn’t a tough prosecutor.

    Ad dissection. Local TV journalists owe it to their profession and us to try to separate fact from fiction in the political ads flooding their programs with falsehoods and their bank accounts with cash.

    Just when I’m about to vomit after seeing a political ad that’s even worse than the one before it, Raj Chohan pops up on CBS 4 News and explains what’s true and false in the ad. Adam Schrager does the same for 9News.

    I don’t always agree with them, but they’re fair.

    Denver’s other local TV stations should be ashamed of themselves for making so much money on these ads without assigning journalists to fact-check them for viewers.

    Thank you, Salzman. I could have never said it better.

    1. for laying in the weeds and trying for the gotcha.  She is known for actually lying to sources or targets about what the story is.  She knows that a story like the one she wrote on Ritter, will get good placement and look like good hard investigative journalism although it isn’t.  It is all about creating a reputation for herself and not practicing good journalism.  And since this is not the first time she has done this kind of ‘story’, I am guessing that Fred Brown is ashamed to be classified in the same profession as Crummy.

      She gives all good journalists a bad name.

  5. Top of the front page of todays Gazette here in the Springs:

    “Hefley supports ‘none of the above’ in 5th”

    Apparently Lamborns outreach was too little too late.  Joel Hefley sent out an email saying that he does not endorse Jay Fawcett because he considers him to be a liberal Democrat.  He then goes to say that he will not endorse people who run sleazy, dishonest campaigns regardless of party affiliation.  Doug Lamborns name was never mentioned in the message.
    It really does not pay to be extra vicious in a primary race, you’ll usually need the help of those you ran against.  Doug Lamborn is looking more and more like the man who will go down in local political history as someone who blew one of the surest victories the Republicans could count on.  His supporters continue to defame Joel Hefley in the local editorial page, and call the local Republicans who stand with him “stealth Democrats”.  They seem intent on spending at least as much vitriol and effort on attacking other Republicans, as they would on Jay Fawcett, the real opponent for Republicans in this race.

    1. What makes you say that? Just because a “has been” refuses to endorse Lamborn (and also calls the opponent a liberal), does that means Lamborn is done? Stick a fork in him?
      I don’t think so. It would take a lot more than that to get a liberal in power here.
      About as hard as it would be to get a conservative in power in the liberal socialist oasis known as Boulder.
      Wish all you want, it ain’t over til the fat broad sings. Same with the gov’s race. Ol BB can walk away with it. Ritter is doing nothing to defend his half ass record that has been exposed.
      Or maybe he can’t…………..

      1. Quite correct Gecko, no fat lady singing yet. Though the Mason Dixon had it tied I will say now that Lamborn wins by at least 12 in this one.  There is a small universe here on Colorado Pols that gets all their information about politics from Colorado Pols (kudos to Pols) and think that they are in the know of what is going to happen, this is the same universe that does not work in politics (granted there is a majority of people that read Pols who are involved in politics).  The problem with this is that certain campaigns are quite affective of posting on here in a way that skews reality, or attempts to manipulate people and the press (yes, they do read, and read often) in a way favorable to their candidates (kudos to those campaigns for doing that).  This is readily apparent by people saying that these write in candidates for CD5 are the way to go to get a Republican elected down there.  None of the people who are posting about these write in candidates want them to win.  They are either Fawcett people attempting to steal a couple cheap votes from Doug so that he might win (he won’t) or sadly they are Crank guys attempting the same thing as Fawcett’s people are doing, but for the sake of knowing that a general election vs an incumbent Fawcett is much easier than a primary against an incumbent Lamborn.  This isn’t exclusive just to CD5, you see it in the Govs race and the CD4 race as well from both sides. Anyways just thought I’d throw a little FYI out there to all the new readers of Pols….my good deed for the day.

        PS My guess is that there will be a few responses from these same campaigns saying how wrong I am,,,which is of course, more spin.

        1. Is “John Galt” your name or is it a take off of the Ayn Rand character? That one is for me, curiosity and all.

          Next: Lamborn by twelve? Are you serious? Have you seen the debate videos? It is naive to think that any ol’ conservative will win in a landslide in Colorado Springs. Will they win 99 times out of 100? Yes they will, but does that mean that they have to do nothing to win, no. Lamborn may win, but by that preposterous of a margin is so far out there that it is absurd.

          I would say that the average poster on Coloradopols has at least tacit involvement or knows people that work in politics. I obviously do not, and have made that clear. I just have an unhealthy passion for politics, mostly on the national and international level, but I am fascinated by the dynamic that makes up the state races, and I am unabashedly liberal. Ask Lauren Bacall, she’ll vouch for me on that one. The notion that people on this site only get their information from this site is also absurd. This is just a focal point for discussion. An area to discuss local happenings, to bounce ideas of one another. In short, it is like any other blog. Similar to any other blog any person that reads it would be remiss not to do their own research to verify or disprove the claims made by any other poster.

          “The problem with this is that certain campaigns are quite affective of posting on here in a way that skews reality, or attempts to manipulate people and the press (yes, they do read, and read often) in a way favorable to their candidates (kudos to those campaigns for doing that).”

          Which campaigns are you referencing? Like I said above, any poster that does not verify things for themselves has had the wool pulled over their eyes, and is ignorant for not fact checking themselves. If a member of the press is guilty of using posters on this site as a catalyst for material they are either negligent or know something that I dont (which is entirely possible). The only person that I am aware of that has admitted that he or she is part of a campaign is Moonraker, and he is doing one hell of a bang up job convincing me that I should vote for Both ways Bob. I know there are others and I can tell who they are, but the point remains that if people are so easily swayed then we are in a said state of affairs.

          “This is readily apparent by people saying that these write in candidates for CD5 are the way to go to get a Republican elected down there.  None of the people who are posting about these write in candidates want them to win.”

          So what? Maybe Demogirl works for the Fawcett campaign, and maybe she doesnt. Does that matter? Personally, I was unaware that there were write-ins in CD-5. Not that it really matters to me as CD-6 is my district, but it is also good to know.

          Your posting reeks of the holier-than-thou-I-am-a-man-of-distinction-who-knows-what-is-going-on rhetoric that I read all the time. Congratulations. You readily dismiss any rebuttal to your argument because, how dare they question you! It must be spin! Get over yourself. If I wanted to read about how smart people think they are I would read free republic.

          The reason why this site works is due to people all across the spectrum posting on here. You get people like Gecko, the I just want to piss off the leftists; and you get people like Moonraker, probably a low level player that will defend his candidates honor to the death; and you get people like me, unhealthy in our passion of politics. It works because there are enough people in the middle, and I use that term loosely, to balance everything out. So get off your high horse. If you think this all spin and innuendo than dont read it. I come because I like to talk politics, not to be lectured.

          1. He is unabashedly a Liberal. 

            John Galt is in fact the hero of Atlas Shrugged, and I would say without fear of being corrected that our poster picked the name for that reason.  Personally I preferred Francisco, and I thought Hank got a really raw deal, but this discussion belongs in a book club blog.

            One group that did a great job blogging myths in here was Peggy Lamm.  I didn’t do my own research because that race wasn’t in my neck of the woods and I didn’t care, but I did think that race was close until the votes were counted. 

            1. I enjoyed Francisco the most too, but “Who is Francisco D’Anconia?” just did not work ;O)

              Yeah, Lamm did a great job.  I thought she was the front runner most of the time.  Especially since all the polling showed her ahead.

          2. The name is taken from a Rand book, a recommended read if you have not done so.  Yes, also quite serious about how much Lamborn is going to win by as well.  One thing I did not make clear though was how much I enjoy this site, this site does work for all the reasons you named.  That being said, I was 100% correct in every thing I said about people using this site for their benefit and why they do so, I was also 100% correct in the press checking in on this site for leads.  If you got a bunch of in the know politicos anonymously blogging about anything and everything, you are sure to get a couple gems that lead to good stories.  Did not mean to offend you Mr.Toodles, (is the name taken from my aunt Millie’s poodle?) just thought I’d throw out some FYI on what this site is and what it accomplishes for some campaigns.

            1. Thats why I asked. I would assume that it is a fairly common name though, so I was curious. My nom de plume was given to me by a friend of mine due to me ending a conversation with “toodles,” and since he bought me my account on another site he choose the name. I kept it because it is easy to remember.

              I can not believe that Lamborn will win by that much. I suspect he will win, but that margin is too great. Granted, you and I will fundamentally disagree on this point, and truly it is not up to me as I dont live in CD-5, but we shall see.

              I am out of the loop as I said. My passion for politics borders on obsession, and I fully admit my naivete about certain issues. Among those being the newspaper industry. I dont feel like newspaper endorsements mean much, in this day and age, nor for that matter unions, but that is neither here nor there. I am astonished that reporters would check here for leads, my apologies to the pols, partially because I assume that campaign workers would be not so foolish as to divulge anything of value on a public blog.

              I am sure as well that campaigners may use this site to float rumors. But rumors accepted as truth are a bane to political discussion unless they can be confirmed. And even confirmed rumors may not be a boon to a campaign if they are used for the wrong reasons. The listing of write-in candidates may or may not be a good thing come november, and since my degree is not in political science I can only assume the effectiveness of a write-in candidacy (my assumption being that they are generally not effective).

              No offense taken really, the ends for which people use this site, at least to me, are assumed. But unlike some on the campaign front this is a site I use for all the reasons I listed. I still hold that people who accept what is said on any site, who take as fact what is given, should be aware that what they believe may, in fact, be wrong.

        2. my posts title, but I would like to see one thing out of the Lamborn campaign that would make me feel positive about voting for him.  I have been active in the El Paso Republican Party in the past, and have worked on campaigns.  There has been infighting in the past, but it has never come to this level after the primary in my experience.  Half of the attacks in the public forums from those who support Lamborn are against other Republicans.  Calling Joel Hefley a “has been” does absolutely nothing to change my opinion about Lamborns campaign.  I happen to respect Hefley and the work he did for this district.  To offer disrespect like this smacks of sour grapes. I will vote for Lamborn if only to do my part to try and keep the Democrats at bay.  But I won’t lie about how I feel, Lamborn hasn’t given me a reason to vote for him, I only have reasons to vote against Jay Fawcett.

          1. I respect Hefley and what he has done. But your post made it sound like Lamborn might as well hang up his hat.
            I am fairly sure Lamborn will win and it might be due in part to people like you (and me) that vote against the other guy rather than for our party’s man.
            Same with the gov’s race…………

          2. Joel has integrity, a rare commodity in DC.  He votes for what he truly thinks is right for America, not what his party is demanding. You can take his word to the bank. I disagreed with the majority of his votes that I’m aware of, not living in the district, but I know he arrived at those decisions honestly.  There’s a reason Tom DeLay couldn’t leave him on the Ethics Committee: he was ethical.  Can you imagine Lamborn on the Ethics Committee?  Hoo boy!

            I also like Ron Paul of Texas.  More libertarian than Re-pube, not one of the guys that’s on his third set of knee pads.

        3. I agree that Lamborn will most likely win, and I think your call is probably within a few points of being correct.  What you left out is how poor it is for a republican to only pull 55% of the vote in this district.  That is embarrassing and it goes to show how bad Lamborn’s reputation is.

          I am leaning toward voting for Fawcett, but partly because I think this seat will stay R with or without my vote.  I really hope that in two years we produce a candidate who is not a hypocrite and is not an embarrassment to send to Congress. 

            1. Lamborn is 50% libertarian.  He gets it from Doug Bruce.  The other 50% is wanabe slick politician with no talent for it.  Really though, Lamborn’s libertarian side is part of what drives those of us on the right nuts.  He is anti government not conservative.  Of course I am much more offended by his hypocrisy… 

              1. 50% libertarian???  MAYBE on purely economic and tax issues he might have libertarian tendencies, but he’s a FASCIST on separation of church and state, sexual orientation and privacy issues, and reproductive choice.  I totally agree with you on the sleazy politician assessment of the Stuttering Gas-Bag……

  6. Tancredo is running a campaign ad on the History Channel. Anyone want to guess the main topic?

    No, not immigration, he has a MLK Humanitarian Award winner thanking him for the legislation he introduced in Congress to end slavery and a civil war in Sudan. Talk about getting outside of the box.

    1. But like many of his proposals it has accomplished nothing. The mujahadeen of Sudan keep up with raping and pillaging, and this administration has done what? I seem to remember them doing nothing because Sudan has oil and is a partner in our fight on terror. Hmmm…Kind of like Syria is not a partner, but they have secret prisons so they are ok.

      We all know that Winter is probably going to lose to Tancredo. That doesnt take away from the fact that he is (1) a racist, (2) a xenophobe, and (3) hates a religion so much that he advocates its destruction. He may be my congressman, but he will never represent me.

    2. Are you saying he’s just mentioned in a show there? Look, he’s had the race won – barring some colossal misstep on his part – since before the campaign began. That’s just a fact in the gerrymandered 6th CD.

  7. It looks like as many as 30 seats might shift. A shift of power in the House would mean that Rep. Henry Waxman of Los Angeles, known as an investigative bulldog, would take over the Government Reform Committee. He would have subpoena power to go after the Bush administration, pharmaceutical companies or other targets.

    “Henry Waxman is fearless, smart, with an experienced staff that would shine a necessary light on things,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren of San Jose, who chairs the state’s congressional delegation of 33 Democrats — the largest contingent by far in Congress.

    The next couple of years could be quite interesting. We could start to climb out from under the kleptocracy that Bush has enabled.

    1. and I don’t think we’d see him shooting bullets into a watermelon to prove to himself that Vince Foster committed suicide.  (Something which Dan Burton, former Republican chairman of that committee, once did because he wouldn’t believe the police investigation reports into Foster’s suicide.) 
        It’s going to be nice to have some people running the House who have some degree of neurological activity going on above the neck.

    2. the all knowing Washington Post and their keen insight that it could be 12-30 seats????  They also predicted Haleys Comet to come back in another 60 some years.

  8. …..N.Y. Times is reporting this morning that the FBI is investigating whether Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Curt Weldon used his influence (he’s vice chair of House Armed Services Committee) to obtain lobbying and consulting contracts for his daughter.

  9. It was with great joy this morning that I was able to open the weekends paper and read the endorsement of Angie Paccione for CD$.  I have read with great interest the posts on this site predicting her demise because of the withdraw of the DCCC money.  The more I am able to watch Ms. Paccione in action, the more I am convinced I am right in my decision to jump the party line in 24 days. 

    Andy Bradshaw, I do owe you an apology.  I made a hasty post a few weeks back concerning the scheduled press conference with Mr. Beauprez and the African widow.  Mr. Bradshaw, when one is as close to life’s finish line as I, it is actions like this by my party, the Grand Old Party, that makes me sad.  The party I have been with my entire life no longer exists.  You mentioned that my post contained a lot of melodrama.  Yes, it did.  But for that I am not sorry.  If someone of youth and intelligence does not get their hands on the wheel of the Colorado Republican Party it will soon be irrelevant.

    I am absolutely nauseous over the current TV ads being run by Marilyn Musgrave over her past financial problems.  Most of us who have had any real experience in life know that we have many bumps along the road.  Show me someone who hasn’t had a problem and I’ll likely show you someone who hasn’t done much.  The very existence of the bankruptcy provision of our legal code is a critical component of our free market system.  To maximize the ingenuity and entrepreneurship of American citizens they MUST be allowed to BOTH fail and succeed.  And when they fail there must be a safety valve to let them start again.  If not for this we would have a return of debtor’s prison’s of yesteryear.  Is that what the Congresswoman prefers?  I am told that Angie was eventually able to repay all of her debts.  That, my dear frineds, is the real measure of how you should be judging Ms. Paccione.

    My last concern is this: If one subscribes to the theory that the House of Representatives will be in the hands of the Democratic party, a reasonable person would have to ask whether returning Congresswoman Musgrave to Washington could possibly be in the best interests of our district.  I do not believe the Congresswoman has spent any time in the past four years building a potential bi-partisan network.  She has no political capital of which to spend with a Democratic leadership.  I believe the fourth CD would be completely marginalized in this scenario.

    As I said earlier, I do not wish ill on the Congresswoman and do not prefer to get into personal attacks.  I believe the facts speak well enough for themselves without the presence of such attacks.  I have once again copied my earlier comments below as a reference. 

    Thank you once again for the chance to be a part of this forum.  It is enlightening and useful to me.

    From a Fort Morgan Republican

    I’ve been following the posts on the Paccione/Musgrave debate.  I must say it is fascinating to me as a life-long Republican just how sensitive this new crop of Republicans are when their beliefs are challenged.  Having the advantage of age and experience over these apparently young blokes, I feel compelled to throw in my two cents.
    I have been a businessman my entire life.  The party I grew up in no longer exists; at my age I’m not sure I even can muster up the energy to fight the extremism that has permeated both the state and national party.  I believed in small government, that local government was the best government; I belive in the rights of the ordinary man, loathed corporate dominance in any sector, and thought the issues of women’s rights and sexual preference were best left to the individual. I’ve always been very sensitive to the enviroment and how we keep our air and water clean. I am also a devout, tolerant Christian.

    What has my party given us?  No Child Left Behind, the largest ursurpment of local power in the history of our government; we passed an energy bill through Congress worth nearly $13 billion dollars last year supported by our Congresswoman. It was the traditional industries of coal, oil and natural gas that benefitted inordinately from the federal trough, leaving the fledgling renewable industries to divvy up a small portion of the pie.  In light of the overwhelming scientific data that demonstrates that human activity is affecting our atmosphere, the federal administration, enabled by our very own representatives continue to protect these industries from accountability at the same time they are making unimaginable profits.  We have struggling rural communities on the eastern plains that are in dire need of new industry like ethanol and wind.  When Amendment 37 was put in to place nearly two years ago, our very own state legislator at the time, Rep. Greg Brophy, opposed the initiative.  This initiative has now given Colorado two of the largest wind farms in America. 

    Just this past year both our very own Rep. Cory Gardener and Senator Greg Brophy went on record as opposing Referendum C; it would also have repealed the senior citizens property tax adjustment that is giving significant relief to our elderly population in the district and statewide.  Had Referendum C failed, Morgan Community College, Northeastern Junior College and the Community Colleges in SE Colorado (all Congressional District 4 colleges)would have closed. I am an old sage and it is no secret that both Senator Brophy and Representive Gardener take their political cues from Congresswoman Musgrave, who also opposed Referendum C and I believe opposed Amendement 37 on ideological grounds.

    There was much discussion two days ago about the award given by Colorado Farm Bureau to Angie Paccione.  Congratulations Angie.  I have been a member of Farm Bureau for a number of years.  In fact, Congesswoman Musgraves husband is a Farm Bureau insurance agent in our county.  I was taken back by the comments by the two individuals who were taking aim at Farm Bureau.  It is an organization of utmost respect and it’s President is a fine farmer from Washington County.  One might ask why the Farm Bureau which is a conservative, yet thoughtful organization would choose Angie Paccione over Congresswoman Musgrave.  I believe I have at least part of the answer.  I had a friend of the family share with me recently that a letter was sent from the Farm Bureau to the Congresswoman describing their weariness of her near total fixation on gay marriage issues while ignoring eastern Colorado agriculture; there was the promise that if she did not change her focus they could not support her in the next election. I also know that many local sugar beet farmers were stunned by her vote to pass CAFTA.  This was one of the 11th hour votes the administration needed to pass this bill,  and President Bush counted on Congresswoman Musgrave to support the administration’s policies over the wishes of her constituents.

    All of these things keep adding to my uneasiness in further supporting the Congresswoman.  I have always believed that representatives should first and foremost represent the wishes of their district and not subordinate those responsibilities just because the President needs someone to carry his water.

    This past week Congresswoman Musgrave spoke at a family values convention and made the statement that the most important issue facing America today is the preservation of traditional marriage. I would respectfully disagree with the Congresswoman.  In fact, given the many struggles we face today I’m not sure I would even rate it in the top 10. I do not for one minute deny the fact that Congresswoman Musgrave BELIEVES that gay marriage is the most important issue facing my district; what troubles me is the fact that it is unlikely the highest priority of the constituents of Ft. Morgan and beyond.  If, in the event, she does not believe this is the most important issue facing the district, then one can only come to the conclusion that this position has monetary benefits for the campaign as the sole reason. 

    We also now have the revelation that Karl Rove’s step-father left his mother to be in a committed relationship with another man, and that Rove tried to pressure the publisher to omit that information.  We are also well aware of the orientation of one of Dick Cheney’s daughters.  I for one could not care in the least about the sexual orientation of those individuals or anyone elses for that matter; I believe that is something of concern for the individual.  I doubt that Karl Rove or Dick Cheney would be interested in denying their loved ones the same legal rights that traditional marriages are afforded.  It is this hypocrisy that I can no longer tolerate.

    This is what bothers me as someone who worries about his family.  How much longer can we spend like there is no tomorrow?  There was a reference in yesterday’s blog to Angie’s personal finances.  I know people struggle, and I have experienced financial difficulties myself.  I would suggest that Angies issues would likely pale in comparison to the financial disaster that is occuring in Washington under the watch of our current Congresswoman.  I worry about our rural communities in Colorado.  Just when will we have sufficient reform in the utility world so that farmers and communities can reap the benefits of an inexhaustible natural resource?  I had the chance to hear Angie speak earlier this year and she is very vocal about a new energy economy for Colorado.  The flip side for this is that I know the Congresswoman works closely with the fossil industry in this state.  This is not a personal attack on Marilyn, or Bob Beauprez for that matter, but the reality is when you take siginificant amounts of money from those industries into your campaign, you will vote their dollars.  It’s just the way politics have become.  Money driven.

    I’d like to close this with the admission that for the reasons above I have decided to vote Democratic for the first in my life.  This is not a personal attack on the Congresswoman, just something I must do.  I do not believe that statement she made last week in any way reflects the values or the concerns of my family or the 4th congressional district.  Although I do not know Angie, I believe we should give her the chance to show us what she can do.  If Farm Bureau believes in her strong enough to give her their top award, it gives me the confidence to know I’m not making the wrong decision. While her husband, who is a local Farm Bureau agent may not agree with my decision to vote for Angie, I believe we would agree that Farm Bureau is a sterling organization.

    I imagine my comments will be the subject of much tongue lashing by the obvious suspects on this issue.  I have little tolerance for ignorance and don’t intend to debate their ill-philosophies.  It’s a saying in farm country that it’s not a good idea to wrestle with a pig in mud; all you do is get dirty and the pig enjoys it.

    Thank you for your time and the opportunity to give my opinions on these matters.

     

    1. You represent the part of the Republican party that I find myself voting for occasionally. As a Democrat that believes we are best served when both parties are strong and providing good solutions I’m with you – I hope the Republican party is saved somehow in Colorado.

      1. And best of luck to your mother.  I have been following your posts on her Hawaii race and she seems to be my kind of Republican.  I will be watching that race on election day with great interest.

  10. The state Republicans are pulling money out of the 7th, giving it up for lost (despite the latest poll as of Oct. 10 that shows Perlmutter and O’Donnell tied at 47%) and shifting it to the 5th because they’re worried about Lamborn losing?

    That’s what I heard anyway.  I have no idea if it’s credible or not except that it came from a Republican candidate.

    If it’s true, the state Republicans must be scared out of their minds.  Shifting money from a real battle to what should have been a sure win? 

    Anybody else heard anything or know anything else about this?

    1. Your assumption is that there is money LEFT to give to either Lamborn or O’Donnell.  There isn’t.  State Party is, for lack of a better word, broke.

  11. The race is not OVER…for gods sake, people….talking about how things are going to be in January07 is a waste….and one Republican tactic is to scream about the dirty liberals who  will chair committees…..

    Right now, the repubs have the big MO….MONEY.

  12. from todays chieftain:

    “In Beauprez’s candidacy, the republicans may have managed to accomplish the improbable task of exchanging a certain republican seat in congress for two democratic victories – the congressional seat and the governors office”.

    Thanks, Bob, thanks a lot.

  13. I thought Romanoff did a good job shooting down 38 regarding petitions. 

    Suthers brought up an issue that concerned me when I read Amendment 44 (marijuana) regarding transfers.  If transfers from 19 to 17 year olds (now a petty offense) are prosecuted under contributing to the delinquency of a minor (a felony), this would be a very bad outcome.  The Amendment should make things better, not worse!  Any comments on this that can clarify it? 

    1. anti-44 material I am receiving talks about how it would “allow” the transfer to minors and therefore I should be against it. I see your argument – which I see the merit to – and say, does this mean all the anti lit to date (very nice glossy 527 materials) is flat wrong. Nah, 527’s would never take an incorrect statement and make it the basis for an ad campaign. I shocked, I tell you, I’m shocked.

      Hadn’t thought of the felony angle. Not so sure I disagree with the concept though. Hope it would make some college kids from think twice. The bigger underlying issue is the regulation of personal freedoms in general. For example, I am a devout non-smoker. Will not patronize a restaraunt where I coul smell cigarette smoke. Not sure the anti-smoking ban was the correct exercise of government powers. You can see where that takes me on drugs.

      1. I’m not a pot user and I don’t see it as a harmless habit, but I don’t like government intervention into personal bad habits.  You can bet that if 18 and 19 year olds “transfer” pot to their 17 year old friends, felony prosecutions will ensue.  Those college kids will not think twice, because their judgement is not fully developed.  Then there will be felony records on kids who previously would have had a petty offense to deal with.  I wish they would have done a better job writing this proposal.

    2. Of this year’s batch, the term limits amendment is the only one that even addresses issues that should be covered in the state constitution.  Whether good or bad, all the rest should be initiatives for laws, not constitutional amendments.

      I probably won’t even vote for term limits.  It maintains judicial independence and is worth at least considering, but we already have a method to remove incompetent or corrupt judges.  I just don’t see any pressing need to change the current method without better evidence that the current method just isn’t working.

  14. When the pro-war militarists equate the war in Iraq to protecting our “freedoms” and then suggest that to question the war as being somehow “treasonous”. This approach negates the very freedoms that make us a democracy, and they can’t have it both ways.

    Of course it is the duty of every American to question, and oppose the dangerous lies and policies of the current leadership.

  15. ….it’s called a thoughtful debate on redeployment of our forces by patriotic Republicans…..is anyone else in the GOP (other thanWarner) pushing this?

    1. Bill Frist is advancing the idea that the Taliban needs to be brought back into the government of Afghanistan. Which is fantastic considering that there was another attempt to overthrow Musharraf by people with ties to the Taliban.

      1. …..correct me if I’m mistaken, but were not the Taliban the enemy we were going to “smoke out” in Oct. ’01? 
          And were not the Taliban actual accomplices in the 9/11 attacks? (unlike Sodom Hussein) 

        1. to the dirth of conservative voices on this blog, but it is interesting that none are commenting here. I remember some wing nuts who were all too willing to yell “cut and run” at any Dem who suggested leaving Iraq, even a conservative, respected military man like Murtha.

          O wingnut, where art thou?

        2. The Taliban wasn’t the target in Oct ’01, they just stood between us and our target.  Had they cooperated with our efforts to get Bin Laden, they’d still be in power.

          They technically weren’t direct accomplices in the 9/11 attacks, either.  It might be fair to say they helped enable the attacks since they traded safe haven to Al-Qaeda in return for the support they needed to stay in power.

          Regardless, allowing the Taliban back in would be back-tracking on our pledge to treat anyone protecting the 9/11 attackers as severely as the attackers themselves.  They had their shot, just as Pakistan did.  The Taliban didn’t take an invasion threat seriously – Pakistan did.

          It’s a bad idea, to be sure, but don’t blow it out of proportion just how bad an idea it is.  Deciding to let airlines bail out on their pension commitments is a bad idea.  It’s just less bad than having the airline go out of business completely. 

          Frist’s comments might be more an indication of how bad things are going in Afghanistan than an outrageous idea.

          1. In ’01, the Taliban was one of the main reasons for going into Afghanistan.  Bush said, as you recalled in your post, “We will hunt down the terrorists and those that harbor them” – I’m paraphrasing. The terrorist training camps, direct aid, repressive tyranny – all cited as reasons to invade.

            Bringing the Taliban into the fold again would be idiotic for the Republicans to do.  Frist has since backed off from his statements. 

            Unfortunately, I concede your point about this statement may reflect the realities on the ground rather than how we would wish them to be.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

49 readers online now

Newsletter

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