U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Michael Bennet
50%
50%
50%
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) Brian Mason
60%↑
30%↑
20%↓
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
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 08, 2006 04:16 PM UTC
31 Comments
Since Bush does not read the papers, watch or listen to the news, the Iraq Study Group report may have really been the first time Bush (if he actually read the report) realized the disaster he created. He had Rummy, Condi and Karl telling him everything will be ok, just keep telling the American people that we must stay the course. Now, he may (or may not) acknowledge the situation as it truly is, rather than believe the Yes-men who have been too afraid to speak out against the administrations policies.
The report is an attack on every mistake and continued policy set forth by Bush. Iraq and the middle east are far worse today because of this war, and because of that the United States is more vulnerable than at any time in our history.
http://www.theage.co…
Is there ANYONE, even a diehard Bush supporter, who will seriously believe that Bush has ever read anything government-related that’s longer than 25 pages or so, cover to cover?
I’m sure he wrote to Rice during the session with the Group, “Condi, please summarize this for me in two pages or less. My head hurts. PS: Would it be OK for me to take a bathroom break in five minutes?”
I remember Andrew Card couldn’t pry it out of his hands on 9/11
And it’s good to see Rep. Helfy, the sole Republican to admit Congresses unethical behavior, present a new path for ethics reform and rules as a departing warning.
http://www.denverpos…
Helfy showed his integrity with this gesture. Unlike when DeLay was thrown out ad praised by his Republican colleagues, Hefly sees a problem and wants to make it right.
And, now we are stuck with Lamborn. How terrible.
I can’t recall any of the folks who ran against Hefley. But even as a die hard Dem I might well have voted for him a time or two, at least knowing he is an ethical, principled man.
Just like Lamborn, hey?
I tend to believe that Hefley was the last ethical and honest republican in that party. Sadly, I am becoming convinced that the dems are not that much better. They seem to not to want to change the system.
Bob Schaffer
Mike Coffman
Weren’t you going to read an interesting book or two?
Or am I mising you up with another blogger?
Are you talking to me? My name isn’t Lauren, if you are.
I read Barrack Obama’s new book, which was thoroughly critiqued on another thread, but it was a very good read. I recommend it even if he isn’t your political cup of tea.
You would have had a difficult time remembering those who ran against him, because for several of his terms, he ran unopposed. He did finally show some backbone as he reached the end of his career. I am not convinced thar he would have taken the stance he did against DeLay, if he had not already decided he would not run again,
explaining away a good man’s gutsy actions. you could also say hefley just did it so he could get attention and possibly get a leadership position, but really he had everything to lose by standing up to delay and very little to gain.
he had not decided whether he would run again when he stood up to Delay. two weeks before the write-in deadline he was still considering running as a write-in (albeit briefly, and had decided not to before the story broke). lastly, just because he ran unopposed does not mean he never had a backbone.
ok enough on that…anyone else up for calling lamborn’s office daily to get updates on what he is doing, how the weather is in DC, and to see if hes gotten to meet nancy yet? the other great idea i have is to mimic his son’s voice: “yeah dad, i accidentally lit our neighbors house on fire. but dad look at the bright side- at least im not gay…yet.”
I am so fed up with the R’s always harping about accepting responsibility when you are a single mother, but when they have a chance to take the high road, they cower and seek ways of escape.
So the House Ethics Committee, run by the R’s until this Congress adjourns, found that no rules were broken in the Foley matter. Perfectly OK for Foley to send obviously inappropriate emails to pages because……there isn’t a rule against it!
A knuckle whack for Hastert, but other than that, nothing.
They pointed out that they have no authority over non-members, which because Foley resigned, he fell into that category.
“Neener, neener, I had my fingers crossed!”
No wonder Hefley is fed up.
http://breakingnews….
The ethics committee is the one committee that is always 50/50 in membership. Has been for a long time.
But the party in power has the ability to warp the process. Witness Delay and his removal of Hefley.
When the ethics committee meetings are actually Boehner and Shimkus getting together for a beer, it doesn’t matter what the formal composition of the board is.
Likewise, the sole Democrat on the House Page Committee was not invited to any meetings in 2006, including the one Shimkus claimed to have had about the Foley matter. Neither was the other Republican, so I guess in a sense it was bipartisan.
In what world other than the US Congress can someone be found so much at fault (Foley page scandal) and suffer no accountability? In what other world can someone ‘work’ 3 days a week (less when you factor in all the recesses, extended hoidays, etc.) for $165,000 per annum AND still feel entitled to whine when asked to show up for a four day work week (6 PM Monday-2 PM Friday)?
Then the Repundits get on TV and say… oh, its the six-year itch, oh its this oh its that, but it is not OUR fault, OUR (lack of) leadership…
Sure, Iraq is hitting the fan, but its NOT MY fault (Rummy and W) its those stoopid Iraqis.
Like BWB blaming a ‘national mood’ for his defeat rather than 1-his own actions as a Congressman or 2-his bad campaign
Sorry. That’s what they are. My mommy told me that being an adult was accepting responsibility for one’s actions.
that we, our tax dollars, spend over $500 Billion a year on a defense budget (probably more than that in the black budget, and certainly more than that in all defense related activities, and we find ourselves so restricted on the foreign scene. I’m hearing we can’t send 100,000 soldiers to stablize Bagdhad because we simply don’t have them. What is wrong with this picture.
It’s not only Iraq that has been mismanaged. It’s the peoples $500+ Billion dollars.
When are we going to demand some intelligence and accountability here?
that the evidence of shocking incompetence in the realm of governace shocks anyone with any sensibility. The Republicans sold the public a bill of goods that fell so far short of the promise….I’m reminded of my first date! Where is the outrage?
Several organizations have examined the budget to embrace all expenses that the military truly incurs beyond the up front Pentagon budget. This would include interest on bonds to fund, oh, things like a war because we cut taxes on the rich; the VA budget, military retirement and medical, etc.
One might argue a point here or there, but the several projects that I’ve read all come up in the 550-60% range. And has often been said, we spend more on the military than the rest of the world combined.
So what social program were you saying we can’t afford?
And one could argue that some defense spending is not discretionary.
I think, correct me if wrong, you are saying, that there is some bottom line stuff we must fund. Yes, I agree, but I was referring to accounting language, for lack of a better term.
And it still goes back to how much military do we need? It’s not like we are barely outspending the Chinese or the Brits or the Uzbekistanese. More than what the rest of the world combined spends?
How about NATO? That relic of the cold war findig new life and including the old “enemies” and Turkey, and what is THAT all about?
Why do we have something like 130 bases around the world? Empire? Oh no, not America!
I read yesterday that this last year and next year are very good years for the merchants of death in international arms sales. America, dealer of death? Oh, no, not us!
I’m not so naive as to think we don’t nee any military or a modern minute man version only. But Holy Moses, no rational person can justify what we spend, our sales of arms, our worship of force as a method of resolution, etc.
The Founding Fathers would roll in their graves if they knew.
I stand by my original comments. For most of his rather unremarkable tenure, he was a party hack. He pandered to the active and retired military base in CD-5 and until his actions against DeLay, he was most noted for his getting wooden shelters to cover the fossilized trees.
While I understand why a number of people might have voted for Bush the first time, but not the second time. People got the kind of representative government they asked for. As they say, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
unlike the first time, he actually managed to get more votes than his opponent the second time he ran!