U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(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) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
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) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
February 06, 2006 09:00 AM UTC
56 Comments
Speculation has been high all weekend of an announcement from the mayor today. Does anyone know if, when and where a press coference is going to be held?
Have the Colorado Democrats taken lessons from Jack Abramoff.
We have the despicable display of Representatives Coleman and Ragsdale blatantly cozying up to lobbyists and bashing grass roots democrats. We have Coleman raising money from lobbyists while the Legislature is in session.
Will the Democrats clean up their house or will they allow Coleman to continue to sully it.
Every lobbyist or client who gives money to Coleman now or after the session must now realize that they will have to testify under oath before the Secretary of State about when they were first asked to donate
I am actually somewhat encouraged by Hickenlooper’s potential announcement as a gubernatorial candidate today.
Let’s see here:
Soft on Crime
Sanctuary City
Employer of an illegal alien cop killer.
Likes taxation: IE his comments during his mayoral debate on how he thinks the homeless issue should be addressed where he advocated a 5-County tax (Similar to the stadium district) to resolve the problem.
Democrats trying to cut the throats of their existing candidates to get him to run.
Unsure of himself
Admittedly BB and MH have some significant issues as well that will need to be overcome, but if this is the best the Dems can do I am predicting a firmly Red State future here.
Vote Quimby!
Go Raiders, I’m with you buddy except you forgot being wishy washy on even running! That’s what we need, a Charlie Brown for Gov.
From an AP article on the SuperBowl halftime show:
They may not have flashed any body parts _ except for Mick Jagger’s well-toned stomach _ but the Rolling Stones made ABC glad editors were on duty for the Super Bowl halftime show.
Two sexually explicit lyrics were excised from the rock legends’ performance Sunday. The only song to avoid the editor was “(I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction,” a 41-year-old song about sexual frustration.
…………
Is it me or is there something creepy about a 41-year-old song about sex being performed by guys in their 60s? (we had the sound turned down during the halftime show).
Weird huh BMR? Most of their audience wasn’t even born yet when that song was written. I was old enough to play it on my AM transistor radio when it was hot on the charts. (As there wasn’t any FM yet)
Makes me feel really old.
I can imagine how Voyageur feels! (Sorry buddy, just kidding)
We had family over for dinner and just turned off the sound for the whole half-time, Gecko. The Super Snore is bad enough at the game itself, the halftime show is intolerable. But I did laugh when Ben Roethlisberger came out and tripped over Mick Jagger’s walker.
The article I’d just read about the ‘Strolling Bones’ performance included a bit where Mick Jagger intro’d ‘Satisfaction’ by saying, “Here’s one we could have performed at Super Bowl I.”
Yikes.
Hick to announce at High Noon?
He’s not running.
RockyMtnNews, 10:19AM.
Right, he’s not running.
Isn’t that a shame?
Not!!
… oh wait, YOU GUYS WERE WRONG. I’m SHOCKED!
Right, he’s not running.
Isn’t that a shame?
Not!!
Blogs quoting each other was the undoing.
Will Alice run, or won’t she?
The story…
Rocky Mt. News
Thanks, TakeBack – the article is now expanded from the one sentence that I’d seen a while ago.
Interesting last paragraph in the article:
“For months, Hickenlooper said that he didn?t want to run for governor. However, in December a group of prominent Democrats began to aggressively lobby him to enter the race. They were not convinced that the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, former Denver district attorney Bill Ritter, could win. Several of them were also troubled by Ritter?s opposition to abortion.”
………
Which makes one wonder how the alleged ‘prominent Democrats’ are going to get all that egg off their collective face.
Damn, that breaks my heart. Looks like our friends on the Democrat side of the aisle couldn’t convince their fair-haired boy to run even though they tried to pave the way through the primary for him.
Kinda makes me wonder what the old Hick has buried in his past that he expects would become an issue during a Gov race.
Looks like the Colorado Gov’s race will remain firmly in the Red.
Funny, Go Raiders, even though Ritter polls above both the Republicans.
And Both Ways plays dress up.
And Holtzman–the 50 something, never-been married childless son of a rich man… boy he sure knows what it takes to raise a family.
I’m a big fan of Hickenlooper’s and I’m GLAD he’s not running for Gov. It would have been a mistake. He needs to accomplish more as mayor before he thinks about “where to next.”
This is going to get lost with the Hickenlooper stuff, but the Washington Post has an article about Democrats chances in congressional races and one of the focuses is on Colorado CD 7.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/05/AR2006020500773.html
Hick will announce something noon at Civic Center Park.
Hick will announce something noon at Civic Center Park.
Hick will announce something noon at Civic Center Park.
ROFL, StaunchDem…. yeah, ya think?
So why has CoPols posted the “Hick Will NOT Run” 3 times on the home page?
???
“So why has CoPols posted the “Hick Will NOT Run” 3 times on the home page?”
It got the point across, didn’t it?
“It got the point across, didn’t it?”
It sure did! Though I see they’re being deleted now.
It’s a real “Quimby Defeats Truman” moment for COPols.
;^)
Anonymous prominent Democrats? It is about time they showed themselves. It would be nice to know who is trying to drive the Democratic bus.
The liberal triad of Stryker, Gill and Polis would be my bet, Frankly.
Where’s Pat Waak these days?
BMRt a completely worthless set of posts. Just go away if you have nothing constructive to offer. You’re an embarrassment to us Republicans who have issues, solutions and a vision for the future. Go away! You’re hurting all good Republicans! Your posting name does seem to have some truth to it…..You ARE a bad moon rising. Polluting the sky, I might add.
Wow, someone’s not feeling too well after today’s announcement.
BAS: Thank you. The people of Colorado deserve on this blog a substantive discussion of the issues. The rest is all hot air being blown out of one orifice or another. You’ve just raised my opinion of at least one Republican out there. You!
Yep, the liberals have already passed the initial shock phase in their mourning, now they’re lashing out with the expected anger.
Kinda like smugness in reverse…….
LOL
Alright, Gecko – where do I send the bill to have the Sprite cleaned off my monitor & keyboard?
heee heee hahahahaaaa
BMR uses the phrase “lashing out in ….expected….anger”. Well, I take a moment to review the comments on today’s thread…..look for yourself. While looking, please identify where “liberals” are “lashing out with the expected behaviors.”
I doubt that a basic associates degree in psychology to be found anywhere behind the author.
Draw your own conclusions.
Send it to the Hickenlooper Election Center, Denver, CO
I’m also a reader/participant on this blog that Alva does such a fine job on. Thanks for your impartiality, fairness and timeliness, Alva.
Throughout even ancient history, the popular communication was found in newspapers and the written word. Radio and TV changed all of that.
To get your thoughts and opinions into the public, you had to contribute something. You should have something to say!
The medium has slipped a bit with the internet. We all feel terrible about it. But what can we do? Speaking for myself, I won’t tolerate such drivel much longer. Some, like above, “hog the airwaves” with crap.
To their eyes and mind they must sound cute to themselves. The culture needs beware. Such ability to toss slop into the public!
Hope to hear from all the very fine people of Colorado here, and less of those who have so little to offer. It’s a waste of my time.
BMR, more examples of your theory?
Gecko:
Well, I’m going to have to draw the line and not get into psychoanalysis.
;^)
Wasted time, what are you, the internet police? You just went on for 16 sentences bitching about other people participating in this discussion. Apparently you don’t like what is being said. Too bad. Take a chill pill or as Voyageur says, “lie down until the feeling passes”.
Some of us are busy gloating in the news today, hahaha
“Throughout even ancient history, the popular communication was found in newspapers and the written word.”
……….
ROFL
Yeah, remember the old “Stone Age Gazette” ? Now THERE was a newspaper!
In the immediate days and weeks after 9/11 – we heard the dates repeated today in the Senate hearings: September 14, September 18, early October of 2001 – this nation was in fear of immediate, continuous, coordinated attacks. As a people we were reeling in shock, fear, rage and grief. We were understandably reacting from our place in the midst of a severe national emergency, like a nation with its house on fire.
And when your house is on fire, you grant privileges to the rescue personnel you would never allow under any other circumstances: permission for total strangers to enter your house, whisk your baby out of sight to safety, toss your belongings out the window, hose down your Reniors, hustle you off to the nearest Red Cross center. We granted intrusions into our lives in those shaky days right after 9/11 (appropriately so, in light of possible other follow-up attacks) that we would never allow under any other circumstances.
But we are now in a preventive phase and have been for several years. The questions we’re grappling with as a country now are not about putting out a current fire; rather, they focus on any and all ways to avert another one. To carry out the fire metaphor: We know there is an arsonist in the neighborhood who wishes us ill. The powers we granted to the rescue workers during the fire are no longer appropriate, and at any rate would not yield the results we need. After all, four years after a home fire, we don’t allow firefighters to roust us from our beds at 3 AM, to kick down our doors, to destroy our property in the name of “rescuing” us when there are only rumors of planned flames some vague time in the future.
What struck me today listening to Gonzales was that he is relying on us – and emphatically trying to rouse in us – a regression to that “Oh, my God! The house is on fire! Again!” mentality. Leahy did a nice job of cutting the attorney general short when Gonzales started his warm-up to panic pitch, beginning to evoke the dreaded day in verbal sketches clearly designed to make us see those planes flying into the towers over and over and over again. Leahy deserves a great deal of credit for shutting down that attempt to once again reduce us to a primitive, quivering state with his brusque You don’t need to recap for me. I was there. We all were there. The American people were there. He couldn’t have signaled sanity more clearly: That was then, this is now, and we’re having a very serious constitutional discussion here, so knock off the scare tactics.
Taking the most extreme powers granted under emergency conditions – and interpreting even those powers as extremely as possible – the current administration has undertaken a vast backfill operation. On 9/11, they jumped to the very bottom of the civil liberties-limitation ravine and have systematically shored up, over the past four-and-a-half years what I’m now thinking of as Operation Backfill. For example, in the past few days I’ve run across repeated accounts of how they considered shooting down Flight 93 on the fateful day. Well, if we were willing to do that, the reasoning seems to go, what’s wrong with torture, surveillance, killing without trial an individual suspected of plotting terror? Isn’t granting the administration the right to shoot down a plane with a majority of innocent civilians aboard evidence enough that we can undertake namby-pamby warrantless surveillance? In other words, we already turned over, in our panic after 9/11, the right to do anything – anything – to protect us. Any objections we make now to lesser violations than loss of life (which we implicitly agreed to), the administration intimates, are silly.
Aside from continuing actions that are appropriate during an emergency – an attack happening this very minute – there’s been a dilution and spreading of definitional terms on the proverbial slippery slope as well, making the slope not only steeper, but wider. Consider how we’ve gone from discussing a foreign terrorist piloting a plane to foreigners suspected of actively planning to pilot a plane to foreigners vaguely wishing they could pilot a plane into a landmark. And notice too the smudge between foreign and domestic, as well as the intentional blur from known terrorist to suspected terrorist to anyone who aids a terrorist to anyone who is “affiliated” with a terrorist (with “affiliation” totally defined by the executive branch), and from Al Qaeda to Al Qaeda enablers to Al Queda affiliates to people who mighta sorta kinda agree with Al Qaeda to American citizens who don’t agree that the proper response to Al Qaeda’s attack was invading Iraq (like Quakers).
What we are faced with is, as numerous observers have pointed out, is a perpetual, never-ending war, kind of a general war declared on “bad stuff” – bad people who think bad thoughts about America. This is declared to be an emergency situation, and one that will obviously never end because people will always resent and have bad feelings about the most powerful nation on earth, and thus the crisis is deemed – conveniently for the executive branch – eternal.
In short, this administration wants to argue that we will never, ever, ever be in a rational, analytical prevention phase, but more of one in which an arson unit is trying to come up with detection and preventive standards while the roof is raging on fire above their heads.
I’m not buying it.
Someone’s got to tell Mr. Bush the fire’s out and that what this country needs more than boogeyman visuals from its attorney general are firm, well-reasoned, coordinated, legal policies to ensure we don’t catch fire again. Don’t like the surveillance restrictions in FISA, Mr. Attorney General? Well, now’s as good a time as any to offer calm rationalizations in front of the cameras of this country, using old, verifiable, truthful instances (the Brooklyn Bridge plot doesn’t fly, Mr. Gonzales) or clear-cut, specfic hypotheticals in which these “backfilled” rights violations should be legalized to spare us an attack. Then we can have a national conversation about what rights we’re willing to give up in the trade-off for personal security. Simply relying on crisis-granted powers – and even those considered by most legal scholars as illegal – is not selling me.
I’m not entirely comfortable with eavesdropping without FISA review either, but if we are attacked again, Bush will be criticized for not doing enough. The left don’t seem to mind government intrusions to make us wear seat belts or outlaw public smoking, all in the name of “safety”, but when it’s done to protect us from Al Quaeda, well that’s going too far.
I’m not entirely comfortable with eavesdropping without FISA review either, but if we are attacked again, Bush will be criticized for not doing enough. The left don’t seem to mind government intrusions to make us wear seat belts or outlaw public smoking, all in the name of “safety”, but when it’s done to protect us from Al Quaeda, well that’s going too far.
You forgot helmet laws Becky.
HMS!! Helmet Laws Suck.
I gotta say that “Republican” that Sir Robin praised isn’t long for the Grand Old Party. The Surly One’s approval is the kiss of death. I’ve even suffered from it myself from time to time. Now, happily, I’m a Whig!
Exactly Voyageur, kinda like having the Grim Reaper pointing his boney finger at ya saying, “next”.
AND helmet laws, damn it!!!!
AND helmet laws, damn it!!!!
ColoradoPols nails it once again …
nauqgabo
nauqgabo