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%
January 03, 2007 04:11 PM UTC
51 Comments
One of the reasons I am an unaffiliated voter is that Democrats, particular liberal Democrats, tend to be bleeding hypocrites who have a heightened sense of moral and intellectual superiority.
Peter Blake’s column today discusses Cory Gardner’s criticism of Jared Polis, Amendment 41, and Polis’ belief that it doesn’t apply to him. Two caveats: First, I know Jared Polis, he’s a bright guy and wonderful human being with good intentions. More often than not he is right in his beliefs but on this one issue, he’s mistaken.
Second, there are very few, if any, issues on which I would expect to find myself in agreement with Cory Gardner. However, on Amendment 41, Gardner is right.
Contrary to what one of our right-wing fellow bloggers like to say, liberalism does not lead to socialism. Franklin Roosevelt, probably one of the most liberal presidents we have ever had, actually saved capitalism. Bill Clinton, another slightly left-of-center president, implemented welfare reform, something which Reagan and Daddy Bush couldn’t handle.
Liberalism does, however, have the drawback of leading to arrogance and hypocrisy. A friend of mine from high school who is now an openly gay, fairly conservative Republican lawyer on the east coast, used to taunt me about my sympathizing with the Democrats.
His main gripe was that Democrats, and liberals in particular, were basically all hypocrites. His favorite example was Ted Kennedy who preached civil rights for all and an end to racial discrimination while at the same time, sending his pampered kids to all-white, upscale private schools.
At least the old school Republicans were honest about what they wanted to do to you. Not so any more since they too have learned the high arts of arrogance and hypocrisy.
Ted Kennedy may well say one thing and do something else. But don’t forget, the Kennedy family lost two men to assassination and the threats against the family, as I understood it, were ongoing. Whatever the Kennedys do or did to protect family members is just fine with me and should not enter into a political discussion. Kennedy’s two sons had medical problems; one lost a leg to childhood cancer and the other had life threatening asmatha….If he had his kids in public school, his views might have been different or more consistent. However, I say take the kids out of the political equation.
has a higher percentage of minority students than any public school in Denver.
True.
Andover Academy: 34% “students of color”
http://www.andover.e…
Barnum elementary school (DPS): 96% hispanic
http://dps.schools.n…
East high School (DPS): 37.7% African-American, 12.7% Hispanic.
as an FDR Democrat!
Seriously, I appreciate your thoughts. After watching your posts for months, I was surprised to find that your are not only not a Green, but not a Dem. Your sympathies certainly have appeared to be mostly Democraatic and/or liberal.
The problem with being Unaffiliated is that you don’t get to participate in the primary process where things REALLY take place. Of course, you are smart enough and cynical enough that it wouldn’t surprise me you claim a party affiliation on election day so that you can throw a monkey wrench in some party’s aspirations!
I admit my bias, I really, really do try to objectively see the level of hypocrisy in the Dems vs the Pubs. I don’t consider sending one’s kids to a better school hypocrisy; they only have one chance. The Kennedy’s never pretended that they were of average wealth, unlike the Booshes. GW’s “ranch” without cattle was bought strictly for image making. That’s hypocrisy.
The fact that most of the pro-war policitians are both Repubs and have never served is a major hypocrisy.
Carter and Clinton truly were of humble beginnings, as was Reagan (who switched allegiances after discovering the sweet song of power.) Reagan was a hypocrite and a class traitor. (And a frat bro of mine, full disclosure, ha ha.)
Oh well, we could argue this until the next snowstorm…oh, wait…
This unaffiliated status is something new to me. Most of my adult life, I have been a reg. Democrat. I must confess that for a brief period of time when I was young, I was a RINO.
Since registering unaffiliated last year, for a while this past spring I was actually contemplating the prospect of voting in a Republican primary for the first time in two decades.
I anguished over whether to do the “right thing” and cast my vote for the GOP gubernatorial candidate who was better of the two running (or in this case, the one who would do the less damage), or whether to be mischievous and vote for the wackier of the two in the hope that it would help Bill Ritter win the general election. (I also planned to go to the Clerk & Recorder’s Office shortly after the primary and change my status back to unaffiliated.)
Ahh, but alas Gi-Gi Dennis and a Denver District Court judge rescued me from the horns of my dilemma.
that rich liberals want the best for their kids. The hypocrisy lies in thier insistance that poor kids remain in failed, ofted dangerous, government schools so that union teachers can feather thier nests. The champions of choice seem to forget that there is more than one issue that desirves free choice.
Private schools notoriously underpay their teachers. Private schools do not have to adhere to law in terms of admissions, education of the severely handicapped, or many mandated (yes, often absurd) programs.
How do teachers “feather their nests?” You mean, like receive a living wage after an expensive college education? Lesseee, $24K gross and then the student loan takes up easily two more thou pre-tax, down to $22K Oh, those slimeballs! Those same slimeball teachers that often wind up paying for things out of their own pockets?
In my observations, bad schools are always the result of disinterested parents. Whether that is due to having to work long hours, or that they are just, well, disinterested, is secondary. When parents care about both their kids and the schools, they flourish.
I really don’t have a problem with sending kids to private schools as an option, as long as those school have to play be the same rules.
Is it the teachers or the students? The current system is of, by and for the unions. Albert Shanker said “When school children start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of school children.”
I don’t believe my comments demeaned teachers. I believe teachers are under paid. Most are truely comitted to their students. The system is unresponsive to parents and detrimental to students from the poorest families. That is my complaint.
We can’t compell parents to be good parents. It is the exceptional single parent, working long hours just to make ends meet, who has the energy to make sure their kids do their homework each and every night. Let’s make changes to the system. Let the parent choose the school that best fits their child without the government making rules that drag everyone down.
who are teachers, I am more than sympathetic to their issues. I think State and Federal mandates implemented over the past ten years or so have really handicapped teachers. If you could see what each teacher has to do in the name of “accountability” and the time taken away from students to meet all the requirements, you’d understand why the system is unresponsive. The same thing has happened to nurses, doctors, social workers, etc. Over regulation, unfunded mandates, and accountability legislation create a lot of paperwork and much less time to focus on patient, children, and families’ needs.
The system, including the government nannyists, is self-serving. Who is looking out for the kids? I’d give most credit to the parents but they constantly running up against the same obsticles as the teachers PLUS the teachers union. Thank God my kids are in college!
I think that most of the “non-essential” workers see themselves as caring deeply about the kids and believe their roles as necessary.
No union arises in a work situation that is fair and reasonable. Look at IBM, unions tried to get a foothold there, but to my knowledge, never did. The workers at all levels were treated with respect, the benefits and pay were top level, and managers were trained to find solutions and not go by the book.
I was a public school teacher – dare I say this – from 1969-`1972. My mother was from about 1961-1982. So there’s my bias. The AFT was a force only in the large cities, and the NEA was keeping up the professional act. It’s my understanding that the NEA has become somewhat more militant, but is still far short of a “union.”
Having collective bargaining – which seems to me the only real function of the Denver teacher’s “union” is necessary when wages suck. New teachers are caught between mandated classes, certificates, and degrees, with lousy pay once they have them.
A year ago I looked into teaching in rural Colorado. The pay was in the $24K range and I would have to go back to school to get certified in Colorado. Prior degrees, certification, and a lifetime of experience aren’t sufficient to teach government or history!
Now THERE’S a big piece of the problem!
I agree(mostly) with everything you said except the part about the NEA not being a union. If it walks, talks and smells like a union, it’s a union.
The teacher certification and recertication cycle is part of the “process industry.” Main source of income tutition for colleges. I’d like to see an alternate education certification: A rigorous content exam, comparable to the Bar Exam, which would also test for working knowledge of statistical anaylsis and basic tenets of educational sociology (i.e., mother’s education level and family income level are both predictive of educational success.) Anyone who passes that test becomes certified. Period.
I get lucky once in a while:)
On your post below, that is another problem. Again, in the name of quality and accountability, government has created an ongoing maze of continuing education and certification that also creates a giant time sucking burden for teachers. I’m not opposed to on going training, but let’s be reasonable and thoughtful about it. I wonder how much better off today’s kids are than we were back in the day. I don’t see giving up more time with each child and each teacher’s creativity as an improvement.
Couldn’t we eleminate many of the problems that we agree exist by keeping taxpayer financed K-12 education and allowing parents to decide what school best serves their child? Except for the tax money, isn’t this the situation of the rich?
or parents choosing among public and charter schools where their kids go?
Parents already can choose between public charter schools and public neighborhood schools. If there were enough charter schools to meet the demand, the demand for vouchers would be minimal. The vast majority of parents have a natural preferance for schools near their homes.
If we lived in a perfect world, the public school system would be able to serve the needs of all children all of the time. Does anyone really believe it is even possible given the conflicting demands that currently are foisted on the schools? Even today, school districts contract with privite providers for services to some of their most difficult cases. I see contracts for residential services at private schools in the Board minutes all the time.
We tend to look at “students” as one entity. They’re not. Each student comes to school with different abilities, interests and, difficultities. If we can maximise the potentional of each individual by providing them a voucher to a private school,then why shouldn’t we?
liberals than among the right wing “Christians” that now control the Republican Party.
Look at Ted Haggard and his drug and sex problems; Rush Limbaugh and his drug and serial-marriage issues; Newt Gingrich and his serial-marriage issues. Conservatives all seem to want to pry the doors off of our bedrooms to distract everyones’ attention from thier own issues.
Left wingers tend to be better educated and more open minded.
You pointed out some of the lying hypocrites on the right, but you omitted my personal favorites: the Rev. Marion “Pat” Robertson.
Everyone see his New Year’s Day psychic prediction for this year: a terrorist attack affecting millions of Americans sometime in Sept.
Where is his confidence in Pres. Bush and his ability to keep us safe and secure!
you are toying with voting for a party who you have lower expectations of because they are less likely to let you down.
With due respect, that makes absolutely no sense at all.
I would remind you of a smattering of republican opinions of you and I:
Musgrave declared that gay marriage “is the most important issue that we face today.” She told the audience that “when you’re in a cultural war like this, you have to respond with equal and hopefully greater force if you want to win,” and warned that the “future is grim” if gay marriage is not banned.
“It is [a sin]….You should try to show them a way to deal with that problem, just like alcohol…or sex addiction…or kleptomaniacs.” – Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott, Associated Press, June 15, 1998
A controversy arose following Rick Santorum’s statements about homosexuality in an interview with the Associated Press that was published on April 20, 2003. In response to a question about how to prevent sexual abuse of children by priests, Santorum described homosexual acts as part of a class of deviant sexual behavior that is “antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family”. Santorum further stated that he does not agree with the extension of privacy rights dependent on Griswold v. Connecticut.
Sen. Sam Brownback, who wants to champion social conservatives in the presidential race, said Tuesday he wants a Senate panel to re-question a judicial nominee who attended a same-sex union ceremony.
Brownback, a Kansas Republican, said he wants Michigan state judge Janet Neff to testify about her role in the 2002 Massachusetts ceremony, her legal views on same-sex unions and her ability to be impartial if called upon to rule on such cases.
And take a look at this:
http://www.steveclem…
I’m not going to vote for Marilyn Musgrave, Trent Lott, Sam Brownback, or Rick Santorum……nor will I ever vote for Tancredo, Lamborn, or Allard.
But I could definitely see myself voting for Rudy Giuliani for President, and before he went ass-kissing to Lynchburg, I could have considered voting for John McCain.
I could also see myself voting for people like state Reps. Al White and Rob Witwer, former Rep. Mark Larson, and state Sen. Ken Kester.
Vanity Fair article about McCain
I only just started reading this but thought it would make for interesting reading for everyone.
vote for Musgrave, et. al., but you certainly realize that if you vote for McInnis, he will be voting for senate leadership of Lott and McConnell–neither of whom are friendly to gays and lesbians; and while I also like Guiliani (I think I’ve posted here before that if he were an independent, I would seriously consider voting for him), as long as he is surrounding himself with Republicans, I will not vote for him. Who do you think he would appoint to the courts? There just isn’t enough of a pool of Republicans to pull from that respect us as equals….
G was a lackluster mayor until 9/11. He did a good job as leader, then. I think that his blatant adultery will prevent a Republican nod. Or, any other party for that matter. His acts make Bill and Monica seem like amateur hour.
a lackluster mayor. Did you visit the city pre-g and post-g? He cleaned up the city. He did fine job as mayor.
As to his personal life, doesn’t bother me in the least. I agree with you though, it will bother Republican Primary voters quite a bit…
As for voting for McInnis, I’m a long way from doing that at this point. A number of things would have to occur (and probably won’t) before I would do THAT.
First, the Senate Dems would have to be facing a net pick up of at least two or three seats nationwide before I could even entertain the possibility of voting for McInnis. (This 51-49 arrangement makes me as nervous as I’m sure it makes you.)
Second, Mark Udall would have to run essentially a Bob Beauprez-type campaign of the left (if you can imagine such a thing….I’m not sure that I can).
I don’t see that happening. I’ve only Udall twice and only spoken to him briefly on those occasions, but he’s very bright, articulate and principled.
I may still vote for Giuliani if he’s on the ballot in Nov. ’08 even with the designation “R” next to his name. But I seriously doubt that he’ll get that far.
How can republicans claim individual rights or state rights then want congress or the supreme court to outlaw abortion? Or be pro-life and pro-death penalty? Or Claim personal responsibily and free market principles then subsidise large multnational corps?
As an unaffiliated voter for 20 years, I understand the concept. The problem with being a U is that you have little say in the process until election day. By that time, you are severely limited by what has happened to that point. Pro life Christian Conservatives figured out the process; flooding the caucus, assembly, and conventions with like minded Republicans. They brought their own brand of “Republican ideals” into the arena, screening out participants who don’t share these ideals.
I’ve met the arrogant Dems you refer to, and they remind me of Christian Conservatives. Smug, self righteous, and just as certain of their superiority as their right wing counterparts. On the other hand, some of the best people I know are Dems, and I wish they were more involved in party politics.
The nuts will continue to run the asylum until more moderate minded individuals get involved in the process.
Think about it – any group that pushes a specific agenda will always have those that are holier than thou about it and those who want in the group but don’t follow all the guidelines.
And everyone shades the truth to get others to agree with them.
I hope the GOP takes it on the chin how far they’ve strayed from traditional GOP values exemplified by Ford. I met his gay grandson and he said his gramps didn’t care about gay stuff–the current GOP is obsessed with it.
but I saw a story about how a gay couple bought Gerald Ford’s childhood home (way back in ’91) and completely saved and restored it. (Apparently the neighborhood became one of the worst in Grand Rapids over the course of the 60s and 70s.) Anyway the Fords heard about it and ended up exchanging birthday and Christmas cards. He obviously didn’t give a crap about their homosexuality. Someone responding to that story said Ford even supported marriage equality.
All the GOP fawning over a man who, were he young today, would be unable to get a carrer going in today’s Republican party is pretty remarkable. I’m sure a few R’s are in step with his values but they aren’t the ones in the driver’s seat. Too bad Romney and McCain are caving in to the hard right. (Or maybe that’s good – if, as I hope, people are sick of the hard right’s social positions and if, as I also hope, the Dems make good on their promises over the next two years, a slate of hard right GOP candidates will mean a Dem White House come 2009.)
http://www.thestrang…
The original story was in the Wall Street Journal so unless you’re a subscriber there’s no viewing it online…
h/t to The Stranger.
Nor could Nixon or Eisenhower. All supported social programs like Social Security; Nixon signed several new major ones linto law like the EPA.
BTW, does anyone know why American Indians loved Nixon? What did he do to help them?
the Alcatraz island occupation by AIM? Did Nixon pardon them?
But I don’t think so. That might appeal to a minority of radical Indians, but my understanding is that his support was across all ages. So, I’m thinking something bigger than that.
Dwyer in particular raises the arguably valid concern which the Kennedy family should have for security. (I say “arguably” because while the Kennedys have good cause to worry about their own personal safety after the two assasinations, the behavior of various members of the family has not always reflected concern for themselves.)
Let me withdraw the Kennedys as an illustration and use a much bigger example of the arrogance and hypocrisy about which I rant.
Until 1995, the U.S. Congress had exempted itself from many, if not most, pieces of legislation regulating occupational health and safety as well as labor and civil rights protections.
when you start talking about privilege brought on by power. Power is often tied to money and position. For example, Congress was in the position to excuse itself and felt it deserved to do so…on behalf of the doing people’s business, of course.
I doubt either liberal or conservative thinking contributes more than just a tiny bit to the practice of arrogance and hypocrisy. I do think more than a little condescending behavior comes from liberal or conservative ideologues. There is nothing quite as smug as someone who just knows he is right. A condescending attitude “gone wild” likely tips over to arrogance but only temporarly.
The more power, the more arrogant. The more arrogant, the more disconnected. And, once you become disconnected you create the foundation for turning a red state blue—or a blue state red. Like you I get angry at the practice but I smile at the opportunity.
The one (and IMHO, the only) part of the Republican Contract With (or “On”) America which had absolutely any redeeming value was the Shays Act which was legislation sponsored by Christopher Shays (RINO-Conn.) which required that legislation applicable to the citizens of the U.S. was also applicable to member of the U.S. Congress.
It’s amazing that we actually needed a law that said that.
Is it a coincidence that the CD4 headline is pink?
Try as I might, I don’t understand a lot of what you all talk about here … but, I’ll keep my eyes open, and my fingers under my ass just to not make an ass of myself unnecessarily … with that being said:
I am so disappointed that when I call a city or state office, the music I hear is not that of the region. How hard would it be to program the music so that it represents Colorado? Hmmmm. 🙂
The Goat
The Colorado Sound airs Wednesday nights at 10PM on http://www.krfcfm.org (or 88.9FM if you can get it in from Fort Collins).
I don’t understand a lot of what I say either…
Who is going to replace Rico on the State Board of Education?
Sharron Klein has done a good job as Denver Democratic Party Chair. More importantly she controls the Central Committee that will make the appointment.
Holy Educational BS Batman! Is Gotham really ready for this?
I don’t think so.
I have to disagree about her chairmanship. Under her leadership the Denver turnout for Dem candidates has gone down relative to other counties in the state. That is the reason that Denver has lost representation on the State Central Committee since 2002.
There also have been serious allegations (which I believe are founded) regarding some serious irregularities with regard to financial accounting and Bingo.
I agree that she has done a great job with the Denver Dems, but what education experience does she have. Although I understand that it is not a requirement.