U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
60%↑
40%↑
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) J. Danielson
(R) Sheri Davis
50%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
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
45%↓
40%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
December 03, 2006 06:18 AM UTC
36 Comments
Although Barrack seems like an intelligent, sincere guy, he is a classic big government tax and spend liberal. He is also unabashedly in the pocket of labor unions, ie “my union brothers and sisters”. Imagine a Republican calling corporate America “my corporate brothers and sisters”. LOL! I give him credit for admitting where his special interest allegiance lies, although I imagine like other Dems, he is courting their support.
Wasn’t it Dukakis years ago that was on tv ‘bragging’ about how he would raise taxes if elected?
My memory is a little fogging on if that was him or some other liberal but hearing that scared the crap out of me.
Anyone that boasts that they are big time pro union is not for the common man.
Not everybody is in a union. And the ones that are make more money than their counterparts in the same trade but aren’t union. Hence the term “union scale”.
Even the recently passed mistake…….’raising the minimum wage’, helped many union workers as their wages are tied to a certain percentage ABOVE the minimum wage. So all those people got an instant raise.
(My last raise was in 1999. And I’m second from the owner of the company in charge.)
Luckily unions aren’t as much of an influence in Colorado Springs as other places.
It wasn’t bragging – he was telling it like it was. He paid for it big time at the polls, but that’s life.
And – my memory is hazier here – I believe taxes were raised by Reagan anyway. Someone with better knowledge can clarify that. I was in high school at the time so I’m not the best guy to say.
I was not even remotely into politics then, but when I heard him on tv, I couldn’t believe it.
Wasn’t that in the early 90’s?
Or the late 80’s?
Reagan increased taxes and the size of government more than Clinton, or any liberal president in recent history. His administration was also thoroughly corrupt. Iran contra anyone?
…..but his administration insisted on calling the taxes “revenue enhancers” and “user’s fees.” His people were ordered NEVER to use the “T” word, and they didn’t.
Mondale actually called a tax what it really was in his nomination acceptance speech…..and you’re right, he paid for it on Election Day.
Like Barry Goldwater and George McGovern, Mondale knew he was going to lose, and he opted to run on honesty principle rather than expediency. (He also decided to kick down one more barrier of discrimination in selection of a vice presidential running mate.)
In ’84, I wasn’t in high school but in my late 20’s. I voted for Mondale-Ferraro that year and I’ve never regretted it!
and I would have if I were old enough. But that’s all history now.
We need an historical fact check that definitively proves that the term “tax and spend liberal” is wholly inaccurate, because, quite frankly, it is. And Obama may be a supporter of unions, and everyone likes to think of Reagan as the union buster, but is that such a bad thing? In the collective that is the marketplace, a union is just another market force. In fact, I think unions are pretty democratic in that they leverage their force to meet demands. How is that different from shareholders? Lets not forget that Reagan was the president of a union, SAG. Obama has much more to his name than just unions.
that Dems rail on Reps for supporting those evil special interest groups like business, but unabashedly support their own special interest groups.
OK, so what is the expression, “tax and spend Democrats”? Whatever. Those who support increasing taxes and believe the government has the answer to all societies’ problems.
Message to Obama (or any other candidate who wants my vote) Tell me that you won’t talk about “investing” in bigger and better government programs until you become good stewards of my tax dollars. Tell me you’ll appoint people who know how to run each bureaucracy like a successful business; cutting waste, redundancy, and bloat. (There is a reason why your pal Warren Buffett, who complained his taxes were too low, gave his vast fortune to Bill Gates and not to the government to dispense.) Tell me you’ll work to reform secretive earmarking and will veto legislation that is packed with pork. Prioritize balancing the budget before looking for new ways to spend tax dollars or expand existing programs.
This is what I’ll be listening for on the campaign trail.
First of all, I think it is a case by case basis, because you will be hard pressed to find a senator who is not pro-business of some form or another. I also think that there is a huge false dichotomy floating around that says you can not be pro-union if you are pro-business or vice versa.
Next, there is no democrat, or at least none that I can think of, who think that government can solve all of societies problems through greater expansion of social programs, and of course through increased taxes. I am sure you are being facetious, but I contend that any term that insinuates that dems will tax people out of house and home to create some socialist utopia is absurd. The reality is the government needs money to pay off its debt. The bush administration saw fit to raid social security to support its massive tax cut for the rich. I dont know how much you, lauren, make, but I guarantee that it is more than me, and if you find yourself in that 1% that saw a real tax break was that extra money for you greater than it was paying down our national debt? Which, by the way has increased astronomically, and which was paid down by Clinton.
It is interesting that you referenced Warren Buffet. In fact, I was about to reference him myself before I came upon you use of him. He is really complaining about what this current administration has done. He is saying, ostensibly, that there is a need for greater government spending and taxes. His taxes are too low, and if i remember correctly he said something to the effect of what do I need this extra money for?
I think it is a mistake to take people from the private sector and expect them to run beauracracy as if it were a business. The two are wholly different. I think the outsourcing that this current administration has partaken in has lead to greater inefficiency, more waste, more redundancy, and ultimately a futilelity that most people would associate with Beauracracy, and these are Fortune 500 companies! Government is in the business of governing, and that includes oversight, social programs to, as Milton Friedman puts it, have everyone start at the same time, and investing in the future. Business is in the business of making money, not seeing to all of its people.
On a final note, Clinton decreased the size of government more than Reagan or Bush I combined. Reagan increased taxes, so did Bush, so did Clinton, but look who had the greatest economic growth across all sectors–Clinton. I think we need to get out of the mode of thinking that forms the basis for dog whistle politics. The dems arent here to take your money, and if anything, as we saw under clinton, you give up a little now, you get a lot back later.
I’d gladly give it up. I have no faith that it would. My point about getting people who know how to run a business is that by nature a successful business has to be vigilant about waste, bloat, redundancy, etc. So people who have a business mindset would be preferable to what we have today.
In Obama’s book, he said Warren told him he didn’t need the tax breaks and said he should have to pay more in taxes, not less. My point was, he could have given his giant donation to the government, but chose to give it to the foundation of a successful businessman. He knows his dollars will go much farther with Gates than with Uncle Sam.
You would be hard pressed to read Obama’s book and not conclude he is a proponant of big government, and that was the point of my initial post. I was not claiming either party has a lock on efficiency. I would like to at least hear a candidate talk about the subject.
My contention is that president bush has attempted to protray himself as the CEO president. He has surrounded himself with people that are career politicians, but also successful businessmen and women. If you look at what we have done namely in Iraq and afghanistan you come away with the feeling that it was run like a business first military operation second, which I think is a huge mistake. To me, government and business are inherently different. For starters the stakeholders of government are the entire citizenry and to a certain extent the people of the world. Not so with a business, where a small number of stakeholders are the employees, customers, and shareholders. In a business, outsourcing can be done to increase effeciency, eliminate waste, and all the other things that make it a solid investment, not so with government. We have increasingly relied on the outsourcing of writing legislation, military operations, testing, schools, the list goes on. Charter schools are not the smashing success people claimed they would be. We have regulations that are boons to industry, but detrimental to society at large. The list goes on.
Warren Buffet is an investor. Really, a genius of an investor who wants to maximize the bang for his buck. Admittedly, I have yet to read his book so I dont know what he said to Obama. I have read what he has said about his disgust that he recieves a huge tax break. I think his largesse to the Gates foundation is more of an ideological break with the current administration. To be clear, yes, he knows his dollars will go farther with Gates than with Uncle Sam, but he knows that they will go to things that he approves of, such as sex education in Africa, rather than the abstinence only approach of the current administration. His late wife’s charity recieved a large dontaion from the gates’ and her charity is determined to keep abortion rights for women.
Again, I havent read his book so I can not comment directly, but big government is a loose term. You would be hard pressed to say that this administration has been stewards of small government when the have increased the beauracracy as much as they have. I think elimination of some programs and creation of others is not necessarily big government, but sound government management, something this administration has not practiced.
has been stewards if small government, and I wouldn’t say it. Bush should have used the veto pen and sent pork filled bills back to the drawing board. The expansion of the Federal Government in the Judiciary is frightening, during and prior to his administration. Most R’s and small government U’s I speak to are unhappy with the fiscal policies, big spending, and growing bureaucracies. I believe this is why we took a bath and will continue to do so until we get our financial houses in order.
Your point about business and government being differnt is well taken; however, the government can and should seek to be more efficient and less wasteful.
Lauren, you are quite obviously a partisan republican so I doubt that Obama (or any other Dem candidate for that matter) will be actively seeking your vote. They will be looking to independents and “soft Republicans”.
BTW, didn’t GW refer to the super wealthy as his “base”. Not sure why you are shocked that Obama would refer to union members as his “brothers and sisters”…
Ms. Bacall is as partisan as I am good looking. Obama would do well to keep people like Ms. Bacal and myself in mind if he runs in ’08. The strategy of working the middles worked well in the west (and most other places) in ’06.
I am admittedly a Republican, but I would not have read Obama’s book if I was completely dyed in the wool. I found him to be appealing when I saw him on TV, which is why I read his book in the first place. He is a very good writer BTW, and it was a really good read. Having voted for Clinton both times, I am certainly not averse to voting for a Moderate D who seeks to make government more efficient. Unfortunately, Obama is a proponent of big government and votes almost exclusively for Union positions, even when he doesn’t agree with them (CAFTA). On the positive side, you know what you are getting with him, so if you are into big government and support Unions, he’s your man.
Is it possible for Obama to ‘brand’ himself differently in the future, as we get closer to the election? Did he release his book too early and in doing so tip some U’s toward other candidates? I have a feeling that his election time media barrage was intended to get his name recognized, however, as someone else mentioned, did he do too much too soon?
Jury is still out for me; way to early to decide for whom to vote.
He actually comes across pretty good in his book and not everyone, especially U’s, have my sensitivity to the issue of expanding Federal government programs. All the Dems will vie for Union support so that won’t hurt him either. I think he is still a very viable and attractive candidate. He may have peaked early and everyone will get bored and look for that newer face but I think he has some staying power. The Dems have some very likable potential candidates lining up for 08 like Obama, John Edwards, and Bill Richardson. Biden is so rude and arrogant in public hearings that I don’t care about his platform. Hillary has the bucks and Bill, who would make a killer Secretary of State, but also a lot of negatives. Gore could stage a comeback too.
We have Guliani, Rice, and McCain, who won’t get past the base, Romney who flip flopped on abortion and is a Mormon (Evangelicals won’t go for that), Gingrich who has that whole sick wife/girlfriend baggage, and Brownback, who I know nothing about.
Am I missing anyone?
Tommy Thompson and Duncan Hunter for the Rs, and Vilsack and Bayh for the Ds. Although, I must say that was a pretty insightful post, and spot on about their shortcomings.
I think the R’s are going to have to stretch their idea of the “perfect candidate” for 08. So far, no one is fitting the mold.
I personally am unaware of any tax raises Obama voted for (truth be told, that’s probably because none came to the Senate floor since he was elected) so I’m interested in why you, Lauren, who are usually so thoughtful are resorting to the epithet-throwing that the far right are better known for.
If Obama does have some kind of tax-and-spend record, no problem. But enlighten me if he does, please.
Remember – being liberal doesn’t mean tax and spend. I know – I’m liberal socially but hope we can shrink government spending and the tax burden on middle America.
He talks about all the programs he wants the government to “invest” in, and increase spending for, and about rolling back the tax cuts. He clearly comes across as a pro big government Senator. (Increased regulations, expanding the size of government) I don’t think I’m being unfair, just calling it as I see it.
I have easy access to his book so I think I will. As I admit, I don’t know too much about him or his positions either.
Just try to be more thoughtful. You sometimes sound uncritically kneejerk in your post, like when you say you’re pro-business and look for business experience in a leader (we’ve got a businessman in the White House right now – it shouldn’t be a tiebreaking quality when considering candidates) and using tired old labels.
I’ll try to do better:)
….when all indications are that he’s interested in actively running for the job?
P.S. He’s already forced Hillary to accelerate her plans for ’08. (See today’s N.Y. Times on that.)
Obama is popular right now and he obviously knows his politics. Aren’t these draft so and so campaigns usually reserved for those who want Oprah or Jimmy Buffet for President, not serious contenders already thinking about it?
which was paid for and choreographed by none other than Ross Perot!
Perot. I knew it was a wasted vote but I liked the guy way more than Bush or what’s his name………
I do have a comment about Obama.
Up until several weeks ago I never heard his name. Ever. I still don’y know who the hell this guy is.
I will bet he has a tough time as, you can call this racist even though it is not meant to be, his name has a Middle East sound to it. Kinda like Bin Laden. Think about it.
I know it isn’t and he isn’t but you have to admit, to many people that don’t follow politics like ya’ll, many will think this guy is some foreigner and vote for someone who’s name they know.
Again, I’m not trying to be a racist or bigot, I’m just stating what could be a detriment to this guy.
Am I all wet? You gotta admit, Obama does sound Saudi Arabian doesn’t it?
because there’s a repub pundit who’s already going around mispronouncing his name in order to put that thought into people’s minds. Dirty politics at its finest.
Lauren suggested reading his book, so I think I will. You ought to seek it out too, Gecko (at the library where you won’t have to give him your hard earned money – there will probably be a wait list…)
His father I believe is a Kenyan immigrant, his mother is white. He is also a christian, and you are right there are people trying to mispronounce his name for the obvious effect that it would have on people. But get this, and hold on to your hats kids, his middle name is Hussein.
after 9-11. I know someone from Illinois who said she was surprised at his meteoric rise because she’d never heard of him either. Apparently he flew under the radar until his speech at the Dem Convention in 04.
Much as I’d like to support Obama, I just can’t. He’s not shown leadership in sponsoring legislation, and his strongest skill is getting TV time to say “Democrats need to get a plan” over and over.
He’s just another get-along Democrat. Wish it weren’t so.
The more I like him: http://obama.senate….
about a politician