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*

(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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

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

70%

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 16, 2006 02:16 AM UTC

Denver(crat) Post Congressional Endorsements

  • 14 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

We complained a few days ago that the Rocky Mountain News’ state house endorsements were pretty blatantly partisan.

Perhaps it’s a good thing to see the other side has their hand in. Though the Post’s state house endorsements were spread out more evenly, their Congressional endorsements would, well…

CD-2: Mark Udall (as if).

CD-3: John “Waterboard” Salazar: “Third district voters are more likely to achieve real change by returning the free-thinking incumbent, Salazar, than by sending Tipton to Congress to reinforce the status quo.”

CD-4: Angie “Discharge” Paccione: “We believe Paccione offers the district its best bet for strong representation in Washington.”

CD-5: Jay Fawcett: “During 12 years in the state legislature, [Doug] Lamborn focused way too much of his time on such harebrained issues as cross-dressing teachers and swapping the names of Park County’s Mount Democrat and Republican Mountain because Mount Democrat is taller.”

CD-6: Tom Tancredo, because “Revolution” Bill Winter has already mashed the self-destruct button. Astute observers have noted the presence in all of these newspaper endorsement series of one throwaway to the party the publication in question obviously isn’t trending toward. Here you go.

CD-7: Ed “COGA Mind Trick” Perlmutter: “Perlmutter is in touch with the mainstream values of his district, and he will succeed if he carves out an independent path in Washington, beholden to the people of the 7th Congressional District, not his party or its leadership.”

…create a 6-1 Democrat majority and still keep Tom Tancredo around to snarl for the cameras in 2008. Some would argue this as truly the Dems’ best-case scenario.

Yeah, good luck with that.

Comments

14 thoughts on “Denver(crat) Post Congressional Endorsements

  1. Did Doug Lamborn really spend time trying to get the names of two mountains switched so they’d be more in line with his party affiliation?

    That’s almost as useful as getting us a bronze star license plate (no offence to any bronze star recipients out there).

  2. you’ve attached to Paccione, ColoradoPols. Clever, cheap negative shot there. Speaking of “blatantly” biased…

    Been talking to your good buddy over at Colorado Confidential lately? Has she given you a proper earful on her anti-Angie stand?

    Too bad you’ve gotten too lazy to do your own homework, boys. 

    1. I just read through “Ft Morgan Republican’s” post this morning on the weekend thread.  He was right on…the real testament to Paccione and the story that should be told is that she made it through bankruptcy and paid her bills.  I would vote to have Pols remove “Discharge” from her description — totally uncalled for.

    2. Could there ever be a bigger embarassment to Colorado than Marilyn Musgrave? (Hmmm–will have to reconsider–there’s always Tancredo and Lamborn and John Andrews for a daily dose of hubris.)

  3. Funny how in this age of integrity – supposedly – not one word was mentioned about how Tancredo had been the leader of the Colorado term limits movement but then violated his personal term limits pledge.

    Also odd that the Post says that only if he CHANGES his current style – confrontation, noisy, but few if any accomplishments – will Tancredo be a good Congressman. Um, you can’t teach an old dog new tricks, and you don’t buy a pig in a poke. No way could Winter be a worse Congressman than Tancredo.

    Plus, assuming the House goes Democratic, Tancredo’s little current influence will become ZERO.

  4. The Denver Posts gives us a feel for the integrity of its editorial board, which supports the integrity-challenged Ritter, Paccione and illegal immigration.

    In my book, anyone who fails to enforce the law and enables illegal immigration and immigrants or fails to file income tax returns is integrity challenged.

    Post’s endorsement of Tancredo was as credible as its endorsement of Bush in 2004. Insincere hardly does justice to the lame endorsement and undermines the Post’s pretense as a serious voice in the community.

    Yes, Paccione apparently is smart, energetic and articulate.

    So are Bill (Slick Willy) and Hillary Clinton.

    I guess they’re the Post’s kind of folks.

    It figures.

    1. In my book, anyone who fails to enforce the law and enables illegal immigration and immigrants or fails to file income tax returns is integrity challenged.

      So we’re talking about Beauprez here I guess (excepting that last one, AFAIK).

      I guess when you have a choice between someone who lies now vs. someone who had financial trouble 14 years ago, you go with the person who has the more recent record of integrity.  Musgrave is in with the current GOP scandal-a-thon characters up to her neck.  Time to give her a helping hand out of the tank and back on to solid ground in Ft. Morgan – away from the (mis-)management of our country.

    2. Skeptic — you’re missing a few key points.  You don’t “fail” to file tax returns while in bankruptcy — in fact it is quite the opposite.  While in bankruptcy Paccione would have been under the auspices of the federal court system and she would not have been allowed to discharge her federal tax obligations.  When she filed she would have been required to disclose the amount of federal taxes due but not yet paid.  Apparently that is exactly what she did, and through the bankruptcy she would have paid those debts over the time frame agreed to by the federal trustee and her lawyer. If she had not lived up to her agreement with the court trustee she would have had major problems.  Apparently that didn’t happen.

  5. As the Dead Guvs note, it’s not like Rich Mancuso – a nice enough guy – is going to have a chance against the inoffensive but entrenched Mark Udall in the 2nd.

    In the 3rd, much as I hate endorsing the re-election of someone who voted in favor of torture and the elimination of habeas corpus (provided the Pres can get you out of the country before someone files a court order…), it’s not like Scott Tipton would have voted against the GOP party line; Salazar proved before he was in touch with this district like few other politicians could be, and it’s back to D.C. he goes.

    In the 4th, I can’t disagree with the Post.  If Marilyn was capable of doing anything at all in D.C., you’d think she would (a) have done it by now or (b) at least mentioned something positive about herself in her ads.

    In the 5th, Fawcett has proven he’s the man for the job.  Switching the names of Republican and Democrat Peaks to satisfy some “who’s bigger” fetish?  C’mon, Doug!

    In the 6th, the Post’s logic is as tortured as it was during the ’04 Presidential race: “we don’t like this guy, but on the off chance he’ll change, we endorse Tancredo.”  I’m awaiting the deluge of editorials claiming this or that editor didn’t support the decision.

    And in the 7th, Perlmutter gets my nod just because he hasn’t proposed any completely off-the-wall, inane “solutions”.

    Is my endorsment partisan as all get out?  Sure, but until the Republican party comes around, I’ve got to go with the folks from Kansas:

    In the 56 years we have been publishing in Johnson County, this basically has been a Republican newspaper. In the old days, before the Republican civil war that fractured the party, we were traditional Republicans….

    The point is, I can name on two hands over a half century the number of Democrats we have endorsed for public office.

    This year, we will do something different.

    […]

    But I could not help but put in perspective a more global phenomenon that has led us to re-evaluate our traditional support for Republicans….

    The Republican Party has changed, and it has changed monumentally.

    You almost cannot be a victorious traditional Republican candidate with mainstream values in Johnson County or in Kansas anymore, because these candidates never get on the ballot in the general election. They lose in low turnout primaries, where the far right shows up to vote in disproportionate numbers.

    To win a Republican primary, the candidate must move to the right.

    What does to-the-right mean?

    It means anti-public education, though claiming to support it.

    It means weak support of our universities, while praising them.

    It means anti-stem cell research.

    It means ridiculing global warming.

    It means gay bashing. Not so much gay marriage, but just bashing gays.

    It means immigrant bashing. I’m talking about the viciousness.

    It means putting religion in public schools. Not just prayer.

    It means mocking evolution and claiming it is not science.

    It means denigrating even abstinence-based sex education….

    But everything else adds up to priorities that have nothing to do with the Republican Party I once knew.

    1. In the event we republicans get a spanking what do you think will happen in ’08? Will we look back at the fundamentalist (principled) candidates that lost the Governorship, US House, State Senate, and State House and decide that we actually need all those RINOs that we been disowning? Will the Rs begin to accept a broader spectrum for their party (as the Ds have done) so we can regain our electoral power in this R state?

      On the other hand. Will there be no change and will we see more defections so that the Pacciones and Fawcetts will become the candidates to beat. Hate to see that happen. Whatever we need to get back in the drivers seat.

      1. I left the Republican Party shortly after I moved here in 1999.  Part of it was because the R’s here are not “traditional” Republicans that I knew out East – Rockefeller Republicans, one might call them.  Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower types (if you wean Dwight away from the religious red-scare tactics, anyway…).  Part of it was because I didn’t see anything in the 2000 candidates that I recognized – nationwide – as “my” party.

        I know a lot of traditional Republicans stayed on, and are still hanging on today.  But I see one of two things happening should Rs lose their majority this year, and I’m afraid I know which one will come to pass.  Either the moderate Republicans get together and kick out the Neo-cons and the Dominionists during the next couple of years – similar to what has been happening to the Dems, but of necessity more pronounced – or moderate Republicans will defect to the “new” Democratic Party that’s willing to take them in, and the remaining radical and/or corrupt Republicans became the next also-ran party.

        MyDD has a somewhat surprising story up tonight about New York State.  The current NY delegation is 20-9, but several Republican seats will be lost this election; the result may be 24-5 or as bad as 26-3.  In comparison, Texas – with its newly gerrymandered to fit Republicans lines – is still 20-12 and going 19-13.  Republicans are becoming an endangered organization in the Northeast in a way that threatens their status as a national party.

        Now imagine if Democrats win big here this year, and take MT, WY, NM-01, AZ-08, and one or two more AZ seats: Republicans could be left with as few as a half-dozen seats in the Mountain West within the year!  This is not a Good Thing for Republican Party stability.

        With the loss of their majority, a few defections in actual Congress members are almost inevitable to add to the misery.  If Democrats holding the majority decide to seriously persue oversight investigations of the Administration as well as ethics inquiries into House members, a large-scale defection of everyday party members by all but the most ardent Limbaugh supporters could result; there is little doubt that the corrupt branch of the Republican Party has been Very Busy granting themselves “perks” under the table.

        That is, of course, the “End of the Republican World, Film At 11” version of events, but the Republican Party has been for the past several decades a party built on an uneasy alliance with a single goal: majority control of the government.  Losing that majority only 6 years after gaining it, under a cloud of scandal and ludicrousness, is going to strain that alliance severely at the least.

      2. ….at least, for an election cycle or two.  Think national Republicans in ’64, national Dems in ’72 and ’84.  After they take a walk on the wild side (politically speaking), they hunker down and try to figure out what they need to do to win. 
          I suspect the state GOP has one more election cycle where the true believers will retain control of the party, run another slate of “Flat Earth Society” candidates, get their asses whipped, and then turn things over to the descendants of the Hank Brown-Scott McGinnis-Norma Anderson wing of the party because they’ll be tired of losing.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

36 readers online now

Newsletter

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