President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta



CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson



CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd



CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese



CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore



CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk



CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans



State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
October 24, 2006 03:35 PM UTC

Tuesday Open Thread

  • by: Colorado Pols

Our thread, your comments. It’s why you were born.


53 thoughts on “Tuesday Open Thread

    1. With the emphasis on Hefley’s ethics, and given how recently the videotaping was completed, they could not help but also profile Lamborn’s campaign ethics in the same piece.  Lamebrain was shown to be what he is.  Let’s hope the voters of all parties see that Hefley piece juxtaposing Lamebrain with Hefley and Fawcett.  Fawcett came out quite well, which has to piss Lamebrain off even more. Lamebrain would be blown out of the water and sent back to the large insestine from which he came out of the Colorado Christian Coalition and the Club for Growth and along for the ride should be the Hotaling brothers and Pat Toomey. Here’s a “review” of the program

      1. Doug wants to be on Armed Services yet he has no ideas? He wants to hold Denny Hastert to his promise to Doug, yet Doug won’t hold Hastert responsible for protecting Foley and FIRING Hefley.

        That’s the Christian ethics and morals they like. heh.

        1. I don’t remember how precisely the way that the CNN reporter posed the question to Doug about Iraq, but Doug came oh so very close to going into the “deer in the headlights look” like he did in the first debate with Fawcett–and then his answer was, in essence, that he didn’t have a plan.  I think he even used those exact words, “I don’t have a plan,” but would leave it to the generals.  Fawcett came across as articulate.  The spin that the Lamborn campaign put on Murtha’s visit with Fawcett, once you saw what Jay had to say about Murtha, was shown to be another case by the Lamborn campaign of misrepresenting Fawcett. 

          Hastert has to go, in my book. We’ll see if he covered up for Foley, but, privately, I suspect he did.  You see all the ethics rules changes Hastert made to try to protect Delay, you see all the ethics rule changes that Hastert slipped through for acceptable gifts and perks, you see how he screwed Hefley, and you see how he would easily lie about Foley as well.  Only time will tell but what it will tell, I think, will be that Hastert is the one that needed to be fired.

        2. So when your preaching morals, does that have anything to do with paid employees writing the Gazette pretending not to be? Lying to the media doesn’t really shake your morals too much there, does it Zap? This is kind of a one way street for you huh?

          Give me a break.

          1. You would have been satisfied with Tom Foley being re-elected.

            You would have been satisfied with Tom Delay being re-elected.

            You are satisfied with signaling to any candidate in the future that lying or condoning those who lie, campaigning in a sleazy manner and condoning those who do as well, is acceptable so long as you are sworn in on the Bible afterwards, as if laying a lying hand on a solemn vessel purges the liar of victory by deceit.

        3. is a man of great ethics who has stood up to people in power and paid the price. so if the guy who hefley endorsed was still running, would you support him or smear hefley as being one who wants to name his successor? 

    2. Subtle, but strong, criticism of Lamborn tossed in at the end.

      Hefley removed from the House Ethics Committee and pushed out as “not a team player” because he and the other Republican members didn’t overlook Republican ethics violations.

      Lamborn’s comment about Hefley not supporting him – there’s other Republicans that do support Lamborn because THEY’RE team players (and Hefley’s not).

      Probably a little too subtle, but Lamborn still hasn’t realized that this isn’t the year to be associated with the DeLay-Hastert-Blount wing of the Republican Party. 

  1. anyone have prognostications on passage or failure for ballot initiatives, including 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, I?  have my own thoughts (no, no, yes, yes, yes, no, yes), not my opinions necessarily just my gut thoughts….

      1. and according to him it will prevent anyone who works for the government or whose parent works for the government won’t be able to accept scholarships.

        1. concurs.  Everyone agrees (though Polis and Common Cause are in denial) that the amendment is much more far-reaching than ‘intended’ nonetheless, it will do some very bad stuff.

          The limits on gift-giving to ANY public empolyee apply not just to lobbyists but to ANYONE.

          If a friend takes a public employee or their child out to dinner and the tab is more than $50, that would be prohibited.

          Also, the idea of giving subpoena power to each of the  appointed ‘good government’ czars to subpoena anyone or anything, is starting to smack of star chamber stuff.  Moreover, if you thought this year was bad with all of the legal charges and filings against campaigns, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.  Subpoenas will be issued for partisan political purposes to create material for negative campaigning.

          This truly is a load of crap.

        2. I’ve heard that to. What everybody doesn’t seem to see is that this affects everyone from children of legislators down to the CDOT workers and legislative aids who are in college. It’s going to be bad and the scary thing is it looks like it’s gonna pass because everybody thinks it just impacts legislators. Here’s another thing it prevents lawyers who served as legislators from going before bodies like the state court of appeals. It gets in the way of people getting educations and doing there jobs. If it passes it will be a disaster.

          1. traditionally at the legislature, both party’s try to do something nice for the paid interns (usually college students who make barely minimum wage with limited hours during the session, but usually put in far more than the limited hours) toward the end of the session.  This can include tickets to a rockies game, some kind of meal, and some other kind of thank you reward.  The source of this thank you stuff generally is solicited from lobbyists – for the benefit of the interns.

            This is the kind of thing that could/would be prohibited under this crappy amendment.

            I don’t mind trying to bring some kind of accountability into the process but this is so overreaching as to be laughable.  Why on earth did they purposefully include the langueage about gifts form ANYONE to not only legislators or policy makers, but , as you say, some CDOT worker cutting weeds along the highway, or some poor guy hauling trash for a government or even a government contractor (employees of private trash-hauling firms such as Waste Management who contract with a municipality woud be covered under this as well) and their famillies?

            Stopping the bribing of trash haulers with $50 will go a long way to solving the ‘corruption’ problem in government.

            Now however, this amendment will do nothing about ‘Honoraria”.  The myth that is used to funnel cash to a legislator or other elected official for giving a speech.

            I say again, this years problems with the proliferation of legal action as well as the complete lack of control of 527 expenditures is a direct result of ‘well-intentioned’  campaign finance deform.  As everyone knows, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

            Vote No on 41.

      2. You heard right.  By its own language, 41 will prevent legislators’ children, as well as the children of the CDOT pothole filler, from accepting any scholarship at all–or for that matter accepting gifts greater than $50 from anyone other than family.  It is so bad and so likely to pass that I would not run for the legislature or go to work for the State or local government until it is repealed and that could take a while because it will be in the constitution.  If you think this is not the case, go read things written about 41 by the public employee unions.

        Way to go Jared Polis and Pete Maysmith–guardians of government from the Democrat Party.

    1. I don’t have any data on how any of the amendments or referendums are going.  But I’ll tell you how I voted.

      38 No, 39 No, 40 No, 41 Yes, 42 Yes, 43 No, 44 Yes, E Yes, F No, G Yes, H Yes, I Yes, J No, K No.

      If I were betting money… 43 Yes, 44 No (bigtime), and I’m sure as heck hoping that I gets a yes… it might.

        1. I’ve seen a few signs around Colorado Springs.  “Don’t let them hurt Colorado.”  Don’t remember if there was a website or not.  Not as many as the pro-38 signs.

          Bircham’s copier place on Fillmore had a big pro-38 sign right next to his Lamborn sign, which was a pretty good sign that probably didn’t want 38.  For those that don’t know, he’s one of our local wingnuts that runs a lot of rather “colorful” ads in the paper.

          1. some of the comments in the Perspectives section of the Sunday Denver paper spoke in favor of Amend 38.  I think this one will lose, but not by much – 52/48. 

            Scares the hell out of me though – more than any of the others.

            “Don’t let them hurt Colorado” is a weak tagline.  How about – “Dumbest F***** idea I’ve Ever Heard Of!”. That would get some attention.

        1.   Colorado was the first and only state to enact an Amendment 2 type initiative……perhaps we can be first (and hopefully not the last) to stop an Amendment 43 type initiative…..
            But I’m leery of the poll numbers.  I remember 1992 when the last polls before election showed Amendment 2 losing by 10% and it passed by about 7%.
            The moral of the story:  people don’t always tell pollsters how they’re really going to vote.  (I know, the BWB shills have been telling us that for weeks!) 

    1. Are you implying he’s not a serious, mature candidate? He’s 45. Did you see him on Tim Russert? With Meredith Viera? Have you read his book? Check him out. He’s the real deal. It would be great to have an intelligent, inspirational president for a change.

      1. I just think he’ll get ground up by the “party machine” if he jumps in too soon.  I could be wrong — maybe America will be ready for him in ’08 — but the folks who think the party “owes” them the nomination won’t be happyand would likely work against him(as in what happened to the CO Republican party vis-a-vis Beuaprez)

  2. In two weeks, it will be two years since my little girl was coerced into a van, given the GHB drug in a bottle of water, and taken to a dump-of-a-trailerhouse by a gang that call themselves, “The Filth Crew”, and who pledge their allegiance to ICP- Insane Clown Posse.
    Then, they raped her. My 14 year old daughter had never had a drink, or a drug, or a man in all her little life.
    The school district is also responsible for what happened to her that day. An attorney has been hired, and I’ve notified them of a possible lawsuit. In this day of Bush touting, “No Child Left Behind”, the people here just threw mine away.
    The local media has shut me out, too. So is the reason I’ve taken advantage of this forum to express my anger, and bitterness. If my daughter was the child of a city official, or other prominent person here the school administrators that neglected to call me when they first realized she was gone would have lost their jobs, and the men that did this to her would already be in jail.
    There have been no arrests. The investigation only involved Mesa County sheriff’s making a few phone calls.
    These are sadistic, and dangerous people. They are known to many in this community as gun runners (they steal weapons, and then sell them), and drug dealers. I suspect that this gang is linked up with some local official(s) that profits from their crimes. I know for a fact that local officials here are as corrupt, and incompetent as they are anywhere. This community drowns in a swill of drugs, and it’s been this way here for decades. State, and federal grants, and revenue do nothing but to help “the suits” enhance their own lifestyles.
    I am heartbroken for my daughter. We will never recover from this, especially knowing that these people are still out on these streets free here in Grand Junction.
    Thanks for listening (reading).

  3. I have watched with amazement as Tancredo has conducted his crusade against Mexicans, especially given that I have heard repeatedly that the national GOP really wanted to cement the Hispanic vote in their camp, and that national demographics start shifting dramatically for the 2008 election. 

    The consequences of his activity are starting to be felt:


    1. Any excuse to scream racism from the big bad Republicans right? Indeed, what a redneck racist Corker must be.

      You’re right this is horrible, and if you’re in the business fo pulling out examples from all over the country, listen to what Democratic House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer of MD said last week when
      refering to (African-American) Senate candidate Michael Steele:

      He (Steele) supports “a career of slavishly supporting the Republican Party.” This is the same man, mind you, that had Oreo cookies pelted at him by the Maryland Democratic Party while he was Lt. Gov. (http://www.washingto…)

      Yeah, having a major party leader directly refer to an African-American man as behaving like a slave because of his politics sure smacks of tolerence to me. What a joke, get off your high horse, go to sleep and dream of all the ways you can make yourself into a victim tomorrow.

    1. but seriously, as far as the substance of the ad goes i would rate it mediocre at best(of course just like everyone else on here i am biased).

      one thing on which we can ALL agree: they shouldve let the narrator do all the talking. when kennedy began speaking it was the worst part of the ad.

  4. Chris Bowers over at MyDD appears to have come up with a copy of the national GOP House/Senate race charts – and they don’t look pretty for GOP candidates.

    The charts are a bit dated, as evidenced by some previously “pseudo-safe” races that have moved towards Democrats recently.  But they do show some general internal thinking by the NRCC/NSCC.

    Rick O’Donnell is listed as a ‘5’ – that’s likely to lose unless something changes.  The NRCC is pretty much betting on a Perlmutter win at this time.

    Marilyn Musgrave and Doug Lamborn are listed as ‘2’s – leaning Republican but in trouble if there’s a “wave” election.

    1. They only have the seat leaning towards Ed, not a guarantee.  Also, since then, the NRCC has put a ton of money into the district.  And I heard a rumor that Ed’s internals have the race tied.  Don’t put Ed in office yet. 

  5. I just tried taking a quick look at the El Paso County numbers.  I’m not a statistician or anything like that, so please forgive me.

    I looked at the party summary totals and found this:
    D: 21%;  R: 46%;  U: 32%

    Early voting stats
    D: 23%;  R: 60%;  U: 17%

    Absentee voting stats
    D: 24%;  R: 59%;  U: 17%

    Early and absentee stats are very consistent.  But if I’ve done the math right and I’m interpreting this correctly, thus far the Republicans have apparently been very motivated to go vote and the unaffiliated voters aren’t yet.  And of course this doesn’t tell you how they’re voting, just who’s voting.

    Comments?  Speculation?  Rumors anyone?

    1. The parties have drive to GOTV with absentee ballots, and Republicans have been very very good at this in the past.  Unaffiliated voters just don’t have the party mechanisms behind them to get them to submit absentee ballots every year.

      Still, that’s a lot of Republican voters – they’re obviously not as discouraged as many predicted.  But it still doesn’t say how they voted.

    2. look at the voting by location:

      Falcon (way east of town – really HD-19) smallest vote count

      R – 65.3%
      U – 18.6%
      D – 16%

      Monument (way north – really HD 15 and 20)

      R – 69.1%
      U – 11.5%
      D – 18.3%

      Powers (east side but in city limits – probably HD 15, 18, 19 and 20 – this is a little more sketchy)

      R – 61.1%
      U – 18.8%
      D – 20.7%

      Chapel Hills Mall (due east of town but a shopping mall that draws east, downtown and south) – highest vote count by a bunch

      R – 62.5%
      U – 16.9%
      D – 20.6%

      Fountain (south of Fort Carson – HD-17 and maybe HD-21)

      R – 46.9%
      U – 27.6%
      D – 25.5%

      Main (Downtown – HD-18 and any commuters going at lunch) about 300 less than Chapel Hills.

      R – 55.3%
      U – 15.8%
      D – 28.3%

      The analysis seems to hold – the “social” Republicans east and north of town are still turning out in disproporionate numbers; the “country club” Rs south and west of town are right on their numbers. If this holds in total turnout, then HD-17, HD-18 and HD-21 would be the concerns for the Rs. (I don’t think HD-19 is going to be competitive for the Ds.)

      I also believe that the military vote is not going to be a solidly R as previoucly – I think the retired military vote will go heavier R than the active and reserve. Just my feel from the streets.

    3. it appears the turnaround on U absentee ballots may be greater than for Rs and Ds (makes sense – less likely to just check the boxes). The percentage returns on a daily basis in El Paso have shown a stedy increase of the % of U ballots for the last four days. We’ll see if that holds – would be interesting because the ratio returning now is greater than the % of ballots requested.

      I think the telling factor will be the turnout factors on the last few days and November 7. I would guess that the motivated voters have already gotten going. So now we look at the turnout on election day. My guess is that the R/D/U ratios will favor the Ds a little more on election day. The break point to look for here down in the Springs, in my mind, is R total % under 55%. Above that point, I think you see Merrifield and Morse winning, below that point I think SD-9, HD-14 and HD-21 become more interesting. I do think if the R % is below 60%, you start seeing Gordon and Kennedy having a very good shot statewide because they won’t have the big El Paso carry to work against.

      I also think Fawcett is the real wild card. Ritter has some coattail potential and the Hefley statements may flip some voters. Again, I think the 60% break on R % is where it gets interesting and a sub 55% number makes it really interesting.

    1. Both Ways is done. 

      MyDD just moved Colorado above Massachusetts in their Democratic Gubernatorial Takeover rankings, to the #3 slot (below New York and Ohio).

      12% is as close as BWB’s been, but it’s Rasmussen, and the SUSA poll had him down 18 points just yesterday.

  6. Anyone else’s jaw drop at the new Musgrave ad with the Iraq veteran, mangled face and all, sitting there saying that he didn’t go to Iraq and fight just to come home and hear Angie Paccione attack Musgrave? It’s the most awful piece of advertising so far this campaign season, and that’s saying something. Even after her gay marriage comments, even for her, this is a new low. Perhaps Marilyn is so far ahead at this point, any possible backlash won’t matter; although, given that widening margin, you wonder why she would overreach on something like this–it’s like she just couldn’t help herself: she had to employ some soldier, who lost his eyesight in Iraq, to rip Paccione’s anti-war stance. Voters will have to be blind themselves not to notice such blatant and crass opportunism on Musgrave’s part: using this poor guy’s wounds for her own shameful purposes. Sadly, the soldier himself sounds like he’s missing the point too when he says he didn’t suffer those wounds only to come home and hear dissenting views on the war. Uh, yeah, you did. Protecting America and, for that matter, working to install a democratic regime in Iraq, means protecting the people’s rights, among them the right to  free speech. Marilyn’s re-election, which seems increasingly likely every day, should truly embarrass the people of Colorado’s fourth district.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

50 readers online now


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