CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
50%↑
15%
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
February 27, 2007 12:22 AM UTC
125 Comments
The U.S. Senate is NOT in Colorado! Please hue more closely to the proper limits of this blog.
Maybe he represents Colorado? Maybe the Pols webmaster makes the decisions you don’t like?
Making light of someone else’s obsession. Does that make me a bad person……
🙂
But you being a bad person has nothing, nothing I say, to do with Colorado politics!
While I was hoping deep down that Bob Schaffer would get in again, I think he knows that McInnis will be a tough opponent. Being the statesman that I know he is, I’m glad that Bob recognizes the damage a rough primary would do to the CO GOP in 2008. McInnis starting with a million bucks combined with his tenacious campaigning (I saw him shaking hands with people stopped at red lights in La Junta once) would be a hard fight for Bob.
I’m with Colorado Pols, I think Bob may very well be running. But if not, I’d be happy to support McInnis. But McInnis has been mysteriously mum on the various war resolutions and the big issues of the day. Macchiato Mark has been very open about his strident anti-war views, but where’s Scooter? If you simply wants to duck this one and try talking about namby-pamby local issues, he’s not only a wimp, he’s got close to zero chance at winning the race.
For McInnis to win, he needs to be very open about his support for victory in Iraq, a seriousness about the broader war on terror, and his committment to a more efficient, lean goverment. He also needs to start touting his fine record in Congress on various social issues. He’s not pro-choice and his claims to the contrary are only going to sink him in the general election. He needs highlight, for Colorado’s social conservatives, his support for the partial-birth abortion ban, abstinence education, and school choice. That’s a platformI and other would-be Schaffer can support financially and otherwise
“happy to support McInnis” after all that yelping in favor of Bobby boy?
I want to keep Colorado red. I’d prefer Bob run, but I’m a pragmatic party guy, and as long as McInnis doesn’t get wishy-washy on the issues important to Coloradans, I’d definitely support him. I’m waiting and seeing, but so far it looks like it’s McInnis vs. Udall. And that’s a race, which the Republican should win, that we cannot afford to lose.
Bob Schaffer is a class act. He recognizes that Scott is most likely going to be the nominee in 2008 and he also recognizes that there are plenty of upcoming election cycles for him to explore. The Colorado Republican Party needs to have one nominee going in to the 08 generla election. Don’t forget that Scott has served in the Legislature, he’s represented Grand Junction, Pueblo, Durango, etc. in Congress. He gets Colorado — all of Colorado — not just Boulder, er — I mean Eldorado Springs.
It’s an illusion that republicans have tricked themselves into believing actually works.
from what I hear, Scooter neds to start with his own kids on that edumacation stuff…
Should we dig in to the lives of Jed and Tess?
I am curious about ol Maggie sources of employment and the paper wall that will exist between her enviro 527 paycheck and her Boulder lovin hubby
victory in Iraq and school choice (read vouchers)
It’s too bad McLobbyists unethical big government approach doesn’t have a hope in winning in Colorado.
While American’s and Coloradans are wanting change to the way the war is being handled, Mark’s chances are looking a lot better than that of a man who ran out of washington with his tail between his legs.
But I dont think it is possible to win a Senate race when Mark is from Boulder and even political novices are aware that his wife doesnt believe in shaving her arm pits and legs -And that is one thing you DONT want between your legs.
wow. what a inspirational human being.
to your KKK meeting, Chad? The boys in the hoods just love your level of humor.
Wow. I’m going to have to cut you more slack! Good work.
But trashing his wife and family is pretty low. You wouldn’t do it, I wouldn’t do it and Chad should be ashamed for having done it.
The land of a booming economy, a decade head on anti-smoking, nicer homes, home to SOF and other conservative groups, large amounts of high tech, CU, fighting for cleaner air and water, etc. Yes, boulder really is a horrible place.
BTW, if you knock boulder for their policies then you need to knock Loveland and Ft. Collins. They have similar policies in place. Not quite as draconian, but similar. And they almost always follow down the same road.
I think that 6 years ago coming from boulder would have hurt Udall, but not anymore. The vast majority of republicans will vote for whatever republican is running (even if it was hitler). That is just over 1 Million. Most dems will vote for Udall; that is around 900K. The indi at ~1 million will be the deciding vote. And did you notice that indis here LANDSLIDED against the republicans with the last vote? As long as the dems keep their act together and fight against corruption, deficits, the war, and W., they will win it again. But the in-house fighting has to stop. In addition, they need to continue to ferrot out the corruption that has occurred.
…but it doesn’t compare to living in El Paso County with the likes of Doug Bruce, Doug Lamborn, Ted Haggard and James Dobson.
home of two clowns, a homophobe, and a fairy
the Colorado Senate seat, and possibly majority control of the U.S. Senate, will be decided on the basis of which candidate’s wife shaves her legs and pits?
for someone to tell him what to think about about the important issues of the day. Running a race that caters to social conservatives runs contrary to what many voters are thinking as evidenced by the recent elections.
Starting with a million bucks is nice but from what I’ve heard, Scott takes a back seat to no one when it comes to raising money. Anyone know how he’s doing raising money back in DC? Around CO? A little birdie told me that one reason Schaffer is probably not going to get in this thing is because people took his call RIGHT AFTER they got off the phone with McInnis. Sound right?
McLobbyist always had his hand in somebody’s wallet.
I suspect that unless it 100% clean, and most from in-state, that will be asked about. Of course, he will have to account for his long record of voting for increasing higher deficits. As it is, economists are starting to claim that America is bankrupt. As more speak up, who caused the deficits and who helped lower them will become increasing important. McInnis has been a HUGE backer of Reagan’s and W. I suspect that this will actually hurt him, not help him. Of course time will tell.
Where did Scooter McLobbyist get that cash when he was alledgedly representing the 3rd CD in Colorado? (lifted from opensecrets.org)
Top Geographic Areas (donations in 2004 to McInnis)
DENVER $32,700
GRAND JUNCTION $4,000
PHOENIX-MESA $4,000
WASHINGTON, DC-MD-VA-WV $3,027
DALLAS $2,000
The top industries supporting Scott McInnis are:
Real Estate
Beer, Wine & Liquor
Lawyers/Law Firms
Commercial Banks
Railroads
Misc Manufacturing & Distributing
Insurance
Misc Finance
Securities & Investment
TV/Movies/Music
Oil & Gas
Automotive
Misc Business
Lobbyists
Misc Health
Poultry & Eggs
General Contractors
Telecom Services & Equipment
Livestock
Misc Communications/Electronics
Computers/Internet
Misc Energy
Trucking
Accountants
Electric Utilities
Transportation Unions
Public Sector Unions
Gun Rights
Tobacco
Lodging/Tourism
Surely you can provide such a detailed list to us about Udall’s top funders. If not, I’d guess it look something like:
Environmentalists
Environmentalists
Environmentalists
Trial Lawyers
Environmentalists
Anti-Gun Interests
Environmentalists
Labor Unions
You get the point.
Much more of Udall’s support came from his actual constituents, individuals in his own district, than McInnis’
And remember, the 3rd CD is larger than just Grand Junction.
It also includes where I live, for example. And the 2nd CD is more than just Boulder. In 2002, of the ten top donor zip codes, 8/10 of Udall’s are in the 2nd CD. Of McInnis’, 2/10 are. Again, opensecrets.org
If Udall’s district is just a little bit better off finacially than McInnis’ old district is. But that may be an inconvient truth….
..but w/o particulars, I’m betting a lot of Scooter’s contributors are also on Udall’s lists.
He cares about protecting the environment vs. big oil!
Thanks for the list, and All Americano Mark Udall thanks you for his vote.
There’s a big differnce between caring for environmentalists and caring for the environment. Can anyone argue that Mark “Silver Spoon” Udall is in bed with a special interest — literally?
And McLobbyist is actually a…LOBBYIST!
Udall’s wife is not. So, why don’t you sit in the back of the classroom and ponder that one for awhile.
McLobbyist was in bed with Tom DeLay. I don’t think there is any getting around that.
Udall’s top contributors (2000 because both McInnis and Udall were rasing money then):
1 Level 3 Communications $26,050
2 League of Conservation Voters $20,358
3 United Food & Commercial Workers Union $13,000
4 Service Employees International Union $12,500
5 Assn of Trial Lawyers of America $11,000
5 National Assn of Letter Carriers $11,000
7 American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees $10,000
7 Carpenters & Joiners Union $10,000
7 Communications Workers of America $10,000
7 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $10,000
7 PAC to the Future $10,000
7 Teamsters Union $10,000
7 United Auto Workers $10,000
7 United Transportation Union $10,000
15 Brownstein, Hyatt et al $8,250
16 National Education Assn $8,000
17 Committee for a Livable Future $7,000
17 Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union $7,000
17 Sheet Metal Workers Union $7,000
20 Sierra Club
McInnis’s top contributors (2000 because both McInnis and Udall were rasing money then):
1 National Assn of Realtors $10,000
2 Gallagher Enterprises $8,000
3 Land Title Guarantee Co $7,550
4 Natl Assn Insurance & Financial Advisors $7,000
5 National Rural Electric Cooperative Assn $6,500
6 Anschutz Corp $6,000
6 Cyber Inc $6,000
8 Adolph Coors Co $5,000
8 American Society of Anesthesiologists $5,000
8 National Cable & Telecommunications Assn $5,000
8 Outback Steakhouse $5,000
8 RAG American Coal $5,000
8 Union Pacific Corp $5,000
8 United Parcel Service $5,000
15 Brownstein, Hyatt et al $4,500
16 AFLAC Inc $4,000
16 American Hospital Assn $4,000
16 American Maritime Officers $4,000
16 American Medical Assn $4,000
16 Barrett Resources Corp $4,000
16 Bea Systems $4,000
16 Contran Corp $4,000
16 Enterprise Rent-A-Car $4,000
16 Founders Bank of Arizona $4,000
16 Green, Manning & Bunch $4,000
16 HBE Corp $4,000
16 JD Edwards & Co $4,000
16 LeGan Inc $4,000
16 Morgan Stanley $4,000
16 Paragon Ranch $4,000
16 Thompson Creek Metals $4,000
16 Trans-Montaigne Oil $4,000
16 Walt Disney Co $4,000
Environmentalists and labor unions can look forward to plenty more closed door meetings like the one Udall and John Salazar held in Glenwood Springs with enviros.
Actually, if you bother to read in the papers you willnote that in fact the meeting was open to the public and media (not ‘closed door’). Of course, representatives of the oil and gas industry regular meet with Congressional offices while no public or press is present.
And…the meeting included presentations from 1 environmental coalition (Campaign to Save Roan Plateau), a sportsmen group (Colorado Mule Deer Assoc.), the City of Rifle, a Garfield County Commissioner, and the CO. Department of Natural Resources. But call them all ‘environmentalists’ if that makes your lies more effective.
Thanks for the clarifying info, Doug. You’re not blogging from a congressional computer, are you?
Sorry. Hard at work, at home, with my own business…
Here’s Udall’s top industrial contributers over his career:
Top Industries
The top industries supporting Mark Udall are:
1 Lawyers/Law Firms $345,949
2 Retired $325,958
3 Industrial Unions $228,000
4 Environment $201,474
5 Transportation Unions $192,000
6 Public Sector Unions $189,575
7 Building Trade Unions $144,650
8 Real Estate $133,933
9 Misc Finance $132,062
10 Health Professionals $129,797
11 Securities & Investment $120,800
12 Misc Unions $110,500
13 Business Services $93,474
14 Telecom Services & Equipment $88,762
15 Leadership PACs $87,646
16 Candidate Committees $67,250
17 Democratic/Liberal $66,483
18 Lobbyists $66,031
19 Printing & Publishing $60,327
20 Misc Business $56,414
source: http://www.opensecre…
So it looks like Udall’s daily schedule is this:
8-9: field calls from angry Boulder liberals wanting to impeach Bush.
9-11: Debate whatever non-binding resolution opposing our troops is on the table
11-12:30: Meet with powerful environmental lobbyists.
12:30-2:30: Make phone calls to area trial lawyers asking for their support; meet with major union leaders.
2:30-4:00: Hold a press conference about new program: “Stick a flower in it,” a new and innovative anti-gun program for kids.
4:00-5:00: Throw a bone to NARAL and Emily’s List over the phone; tell them you realize the urgency of getting Bush out of their bush.
5:00-9:30: Starbucks with Nancy, baby!!!
The top industries supporting Scott McInnis are:
1 Real Estate $270,905
2 Oil & Gas $227,886
3 Insurance $180,825
4 Health Professionals $138,247
5 Retired $134,200
6 Securities & Investment $123,173
7 Commercial Banks $112,840
8 Automotive $98,450
9 Mining $91,274
10 Misc Finance $90,652
11 Lawyers/Law Firms $87,487
12 Misc Business $86,800
13 Food & Beverage $86,046
14 TV/Movies/Music $81,299
15 Beer, Wine & Liquor $80,164
16 General Contractors $70,658
17 Livestock $58,200
18 Misc Manufacturing & Distributing $56,650
19 Dairy $52,900
20 Air Transport $52,005
So it looks like McInnis has a daily schedule that looks something like this.
9am: Argue why destroying Colorado’s pristine natural landscape in the interests of big oil is actually good for Colorado.
10-3pm: Meet with powerful Big Business lobbyists. Promise them that consumer protections will be eliminated in exchange for campaign contributions.
3-4pm: Laugh on the phone with insurance buddies about how easy it is to nickel and dime the American consumer.
4-5pm: Laugh on the phone with real estate buddies about how easy it is to rip off first time home buyers. Especially funny is the clause in their contract that keeps them from suing the contractor. The punchline: It was sold to consumers as being in their interest.
5-9pm: Get together with powerful lawyers and lobbyists discussing how ironic it is that the GOP continually attacks Democrat candidates who get donations from lawyers and lobbyists while McInnis himself is one. HAHA.
HMMMM Funny. I THINK THIS LIST REPRESENTS THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY……ON THE OTHER HAND….MARK MARK ONLY REPRESENTS THE BOULDER BUNCH.
SO McInnis represents business and Marky Mark represents Ward Churchill. Seems like an easy choice!
…unless there’s a messy primary or McInnis & co. campaigns with the same wimpiness as Team Beauprez. Beauprez had no right losing that race, but Ritter played it beautifully and he’s a good man. That makes a winning combo. But Macchiato Mark is NOT Bill Ritter. McInnis will have the room to come out firing and it’ll only bolster his lead. It won’t be easy, but McInnis will have the money and support necessary to keep Colorado red.
Last time I looked you were sucking up to Schaffer. Now you are part of the we that is going to elect Scooter.. Must have been something Dobson said on his radio program
Hide the women and chillun’, quick!
Oh, Boulder. You mean that city with a high quality of life? With progressive ideas that have made it so desirable that no one can afford to live there?
Sure, some folks living differently, but last time I checked, protected by the constitution.
isn’t that the inbedassador from the Republic of Boulder to the United Nations?
Pure evil I tell ya!
I think the “McLawyer” McLobbyist” stuff is lame, not to mention fairly discriminatory. I think this line of insults will harm the person using them more than it will hurt McInnis.
Lawyer-Lobbyist is, of course, fair game since it was used against us, but if you are going to come up with a name, use something the media can actually repeat. For example, the news was willing to talk about how Beauprez had been labeled “both-ways.” I highly doubt they will mention that people make fun of his last name by calling him “Mc” this and “Mc” that.
The undercurrent of ethnic slurs here is childish and would be a mistake to continue on with. It is like making fun of Obama’s name. Do it at your own risk of a backlash.
There are more ways to skin a pig than in the MSM
It’s that Scottish hamburger chain that is responsible. It’s just entered the vocabulary without an intention of ethnic slur. I would offer the thought that it means “ubiquitous, and not in a good way.” McMansions, McLawyers…..
I’ll bet half of Americans don’t have a clue of the backgrounds of “Mc”, “Mac”, or “O'”
Next thing you know, we can’t say “Super Size” because our corpulent citizens will be offended.
YA. You Need Something that is more Alliterative: LIKE MARKY MARK AND THE BOULDER BUNCH!!
When Wad Dickems chats with McInnis.
“So, Wad, I’d love to have you run my campaign, but there’s that matter….that issue…..uh, you know?”
“Lemme get back to ya, Scottie!”
http://coloradopols….
I thnk it’s great how CO Pols coordinates with ProgressNow to get stuff like this up in such a timely fashion! How do you guys do it so effectively? It’s so seamless!
..lots and lots of wells in our watersheds in Delta County. Hundreds or thousands on the way in the next five years. Will McLobbysist stand with local governments that want to increase oversight of this activity? Or will he listen to his cash constituents and turn the other way while the Grand Mesa is turned into a drilling field? Time will tell.
Do you even have to ask ?
effected areas will get a 15 to 30% increase in severence taxes to help with impacts. That would be a good thing, right?
Pols didn’t post this, I did. Pols just linked to a post on CQPolitics, not original content. And (checks again) Pols didn’t say anything about the Western Slope.
That’s a hell of a lot of “coordination,” probable troll. Valerie Plame, Sandy Berger and I are going to have a good laugh about this.
Scott McInnis and the GOP behind him know he is the only Republican candidate with the ability to defeat Mark Udall in Nov. 2008.
The only challenge will be a primary for McInnis. The GOP must hold rank to win the US Senate seat here in Colorado. McInnis ties both East and West, along with urban and rural Coloradoans together. Udall will have to appeal to the west to win the seat.
I’m glad to see McInnis in this. That guy is the toughest campaigner I’ve ever seen. He gives the GOP some real hope to hold that seat.
You can deride him for being a lawyer all you like, but he has a real backstory, unlike “silver spoon” Udall. From cop to firefighter and everything in between, McInnis had some real jobs before he first ran for office. He’s the everyman, and that’s why he was so popular on the West Slope and with blue dog dems in Pueblo.
He’ll be a force to reckon with.
That guy is tireless. He’ll make more campaign stops in a day than Marky Mark makes in a week. Udall better lay off the lattes and get his running shoes on, cause McInnis is going to work him over on the trail.
Some will say ‘too much of a backstory.’ But I think Scooter McCana Lobbyist will run a tough campaign. I just think he would be a nightmare of a Senator. I had him as my Congressman for many years.
The reason you had him as your congressman for many years is because the guy works his ass off on the campaign trail. I think their baggage will cancel each other out — and it will come down to who works harder. Scott will be up at sunrise and home well after bed time — count on that. Remember that west slope moderates and even some blue dog dems are a big part of the reason we have a Gov. Ritter right now. Believe me when I say that many of those people wish they had Scott McInnis back instead of empty suit Potato Head — I mean John Salazar.
He was tireless as a Congressman and a campaigner. If a constituent called and needed something, they got help. He answered e-mails, returned calls, sent congrats letters for constituent’s achievements and remembered your momma’s birthday. Seriously, the guy’s a machine. He is likely cloning himself to be at every parade, festival, and pie eating contest. He will shake every hand in the State before this is over. Scott will have to run against Udall AND the frothing media, but if any R can do it, he can.
Salazar blew out that election. That was a resounding vote for him on the Western slope.
When has he ever had a tough campaign? As I recall, his elections have never been close, and he’s never faced a formidable candidate. Maybe that’s because everyone was afraid of his toughness, I don’t know. (Or, maybe it’s because the R’s in the 3 CD significantly outnumbered the D’s when he was first elected, and he benefitted from incumbancy thereafter.) But he seems largely untested to me………as does Udall for that matter (although his first election was tough).
Ben Nighthorse Campbell. Ray Kogosek. Two democrats that represented the 3rd before McInnis. As long as I can remember, the 3rd district has never been a lock for a republican. Scott is not untested. Neither is Mark Udall. Udall took Moveon.org’s test and he passed with flying colors.
That the 3 CD has not been a lock for R’s in the past. But the district changed a lot between Kogovsek and Campbell (the lines changed for one thing). McInnis did not win in the same district that Kogovsek did. And don’t forget ol’Mike Strang in there! (The Republican between Kogo and Campbell.) Plus we all know that Campbell was not a true Dem anyway….which is not necessarily bad, obviously. His middle ground won him the 3rd CD and the State a few times.
In any event, my point was that Scotty has never faced a formidable opponent or even a tough race (I’m not sayin’ that’s his fault….although he seemed to shy away from the 2004 Senate election when no one in his party rallied to his side) I don’t see that you’ve mentioned either a tough opponent or a tough race that Scotty’s faced. Can’t think of one either?
Tequila boy:
If you don’t know what you are talking about, at least have the respect for the rest of us to do a little research before you spout nonsense.
Scott won his first race for the legislature by 13 votes. He won in his first run for Congress by beating a popular, incumbent Lt. Governor in a very competitive district (registration wise).
You may not like him, but at least check your facts before you question previous posters.
First of all, which legislature are you talking about? The Congress? If you’re talking about the State house, then you’re right, I didn’t know that. So he has a tough State House race under his belt. My bad.
But, to call Mike Callihan a “popular, incumbent” sounds a bit, well….drunk. Even in Pueblo, a Democratic stronghold where I lived during the Callihan v. McInnis election, people didn’t like him much.
And, I never said that I don’t like McInnis. I don’t even know him. All I said is that he never faced a formidable candidate or a tough election. You offered a State House race (which I trust you are correct about because I don’t care enough about State House races to do research) to answer the latter point. What about the former point?
So far McInnis is the only candidate we know is running. It looks like Schaffer is taking a pass. McInnis should be the favorite in this race, hands down. A Boulder liberal has no right being favored against a solid, hard-working Republican like McInnis in Colorado.
As someone who predicted double digit victory for McInnis over Udall, and his ability to ‘keep Colorado red’ I find your prognostications suspect at best. McInnis can likely give Udall a good run, but from your fortress there in Dobsonville I think you misrepresent Udall’s abilities and the Colorado demographic as a whole.
Does lawyer lobbyist mean the same thing as solid and hard-working to you? If so, I assume you have been a major supporter of some Democrats in the past.
Like a pair of Hillary’s undies…..
Still curious as to how Repub primary voters will react to McInnis’ support and co-sponsorship of a bill that eliminated the super-majority in the second election to allow a union shop.
I am trying to imagine all those R senators who filibustered the recent bill thinking that Scotty is their guy.
I posted last week that McInnis was one of three republicans to sponsor HB 1269 that would have made the change to the Peace act.
Just like his vote against the marriage protection amendment. But it’s forgiveable. And for every bad McInnis union vote you’ll get five bad ones from Uniondude Udall. Besides, I guarantee that McInnis would support a right-to-work initiative, should it come up. The man has a lifetime 89 rating from the American Conservative Union–higher than South Dakota’s evangelical John Thune. That’s good enough for me.
And for every bad McInnis union vote you’ll get five bad ones from UnionDude Udall”. Be specific.
I would not call going from a super-majority to 50% a slight change.
Moreover the bill was not amended into a ‘compromise’ with the business community, it was drafted specifically to make the change, and it was introduced by a Republican in the House and a Republican in the Senate (and frankly Republicans Danny Williams or Harold McCormick would certainly be considered RINOs today). It was not a bill introduced by a Democrat that was then amended in some compromise.
Unless McInnis supported the bill at its drafting there is no reason he would have signed on as a co-sponsor and he was the only Republican in the House to sign-on as a co-sponsor.
At the time that was a compromise offered by the Colorado business community. It didn’t do away with the second vote, just changed the requirements slightly. Very different from the labor giveaway that was HB 07-1072.
Speaking of that, where was your boy silver spoon Udall on that measure? He was strangely silent on such an important issue. I realize that it was state and not federal legislation, but for a great leader like Udall who has so often carried water for Big Labor I was surprised that he didn’t weigh in. He can’t be happy with Ritter’s veto, but he sure has been quiet about it.
..on an issue that didn’t involve him. Boy, there’s a logical one for ya. Maybe he was busy being a FEDERAL representative.
My post ‘Slightly?’ above should have been posted here – my bad.
The shills and trolls are out in full force, I see.
n/t
McInnis needs to pay attention to ratings like these from A.C.U. devotees:
http://www.freerepub…
I have maintained all along that Bentley Rayburn, with his (narcissistic?) ego , doesn’t want to be a Congressman but a Senator. And, Rayburn has great potential to beat McInnis, but it all depends on his efforts that I believe are underway at this very hour for the kind of endorsements that make McInnis’ initial war chest insignificant in the scheme of things.
Rayburn is jockeying, in my opinion, through Doug Lamborn for the . . . um . . . “campaign ethics” . . . of the Club for Growth to come alongside Rayburn. McInnis also is highly vulnerable to the campaign tactics such as the Christian Coaltion of Colorado would employ as well. He does not have a solid pro life stance. Thus, Rayburn’s cozying up to Lamborn may get him access to the Sleeze Brothers too.
Without being an incumbent, McInnis is far more vulnerable than Lincoln Chafee was in Rhode Island where the Club for Grime brought in far more money for a 3rd rate mayor’s attempt for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senator. Pat Tumor was crowing about what they “nearly” did in bumping off Chafee for the Republican party nomination, though they were at least able to accomplish the election of a Democrat in the finaly analysis after the general election.
Although we may not agree 100% of the time, I like your style:-)
Where McInnis is rated in that link above as one of the “dirty 13” from A.C.U. rarings that Republicans could most do without, notice the listing at that same site for Henry Cuellar, Democrat, Texas, who is listead as a “good” Democrat in the A.C.U.’s eyes. The Club for Growth endorsed Cuellar in the 2006 election cycle, further buttressing that McInnis’ being one of the “dirty 13” Republicans should not take lightly the prospects of the Club for Grime getting involved in the Republican primary by campaigning against him and for the benefit of “someone else” and that person who would like to be that “someone else” is Bentley Rayburn, IMHO.
you need to be more succinct:-)
But, belive me, I’d be more succinct if this were one of my old political science classes I lectured where all the class (supposedly) read the assignment. But, with a blog, it’s generally the case we are not all reading from the same book, much less are we on the same page, so authorities and development of the arguments are more often required than not. 🙂
McInnis lifetime rating from the ACU is 89. That’s higher than John Thune, John McCain, and only a couple points lower than Bob Beauprez. He’s been reliably pro-life on nearly every vote, he supports abtinence education, and he’s good on faith-based programs. He’s also good on the war. I think you’ll be surprised to see how many conservatives warm to McInnis.
I love it! Save the stem cells! Save the stem cells! Bomb the world!
He has to pass the interview with Pat Tumor, like Lamborn did, of course, and if he has the interview and gets the job of being endorsed by the CFG, Rayburn just stands back and lets “the Tumor” metastisize. After McInnis has a few bleeding cancer cells, add the infections from the Sleeze Brothers’ to McKinnis’ wounds, and you have a lovely, pestilential, gangrenous candidate in the form of Scott McInnis–while Rayburn stands with his hands surgically scrubbed, held high for all to see, as if his hands are clean–ala Doug Lamborn.
And the positive campaign messages begin!
Hemlock anyone?
“Ah hell! If McInnis runs the dream is dead. This guy’s too good. While our guy’s out sipping lattes with the tree people ih Eldorado Springs (which he was this weekend) McInnis will be busting his hump to win votes from the hard-working people of Colorado. McInnis will be in factories and churches, national parks and farms, suburban church groups and rural co-ops. In short, Scott will be working the core this state. He’ll be reaching voters with his message of hard-work, common sense, and Colorado values that resonates deeply with most people. Let’s hope we can get the GOP to split. After all, this state is only red when the GOP stands united. A party united behind a great candidate in Scott McInnis against our boy from Boulder? Well, we’re as good as dead. No need for the chemo. This blue babe is peacing out of this red state…”
So, you see Lauren, it really WAS an upbeat message for us after all!
Very upbeat. I like it!
So McInnis is not quite as conservative as Both Ways Bob? And exactly how is this supposed to energize the full moon, wing nuts in the GOP?
Don’t get me wrong. Out of all the GOP names mentioned for this Senate seat, McInnis is the one I find least offensive (in large part because of his opposition to the federal marriage amendment).
And now it turns out that he might labor-friendly as well!
That’s just one reason McInnis is not favored by the ACU. I’m surprised Dr. D. is supporting him. I’m sure the real Dr. Dobson will not.
McInnis is also not a good candidate for “Minuteman of the Year”. Here’s a good summary of McInnis’ immigration votes: http://profiles.numb…
He cosponsored a bill to create an amnesty for illegal agricultural workers in 2003-2004, the Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act of 2003. H.R. 3142, which would have created an amnesty for certain agricultural workers. Of the 1.2 million illegal aliens then working in agriculture, an estimated 860,000 plus their spouses and children could have qualified for this amnesty, so the total could have reached three million or more. (However, on that score, he would actually be viewed favorably by the Club for Growth, which wants open borders.) However, his overall negatives within the ACU make him highly susceptible to the CFG and CCC attack machines.
I must say, for such a hearty conservative activist, you do have a strange log-in name. I mean, “Demogirl?” That sounds a little liberal to me…
But I’m sure you know Jim Dobson and evangelicals better than I do. So when you prayerfully (and quite boldly) state that McInnis can’t begin to hope for the support of the vast conservative grassroots in Colorado, I’ll take your word for it. And despite the fact that our friend Bob Beauprez’s immigration meme gave him little traction in 2006, I’ll defer to your opinion that immigration will kill McInnis. My understanding was that McInnis supported ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ the partial birth abortion ban, school choice, parental notification for minors seeking an abortion, DOMA, the 2004 religious bill of rights, and opposed making sexual orientation in the workplace illegal. But if you say he’s Tim Gill’s kind of guy, fighting for the inimicable right to abort the unborn, for Greenpeace, and that he’s NAMBLA’s go-to-guy, I’m sure you know better than I.
Or maybe are we thinking of two different Scott McInnises? Because the one I’m thinking of, you know, the guy from Glenwood Springs running for Senate, is a solid conservative fighting for the issues most important to Coloradans. And, despite your plees for schism, he’s going to win because of it.
I just think you are not fully informed on McInnis’ record. He’s highly vulnerable to the smear tactics that the CFG and the CCC employ so well. There are far more qualified candidates that Republicans could put forward. Bentley Rayburn, no doubt, thinks he’s one such Republican, and from the standpoint that he does NOT have a record on which to run, is supremely positioned to pick away at McInnis–provided he can get the sleeze and grime merchants at the CCC and CFG in his corner.
So you don’t go to my church?
(Just kidding…just kidding!)
You’re right. McInnis could emerge from a messy primary as a highly damaged product. That’s why avoiding a primary is so key. Rayburn can’t possibly believe he stands a chance and if he does he’ll get himself a good talkin’ to and you’ll probably see him peace out after a while. He can’t raise the money Scott can and his name-recognition will never be at Udall or McInnis’ level. With no primary CCC and CFG will have to keep it zipped.
It’s usually the case that a political rookie is weakened by not having a (political) record on which to run but in Rayburn’s case, against McInnis, it’s a strength–IF he has the $$$$$$$ from the CFG in his corner. The CCC doesn’t have that kind of coinage so he can do well enough without the CCC. Of course, the unknown is how much of a backlash he would have from 5th CD Republicans in the primary mindful of the tactics of the CCC and CFG, and how much of a backlash he would have–if getting to the general election–from democrats who remember well enough the CCC and CFG’s attacks on Colonel Fawcett.
…esp. after hearing what an “open borders” kind of candidate Scott McInnis is.
Scott is a strong campaigner and has the crossover appeal on issues such as the environment that will bring some would-be Udall supporters to the Republicans. Unfortunately, it is the crossover appeal that Schaffer lacks.
I don’t see much of that happening. McInnis wasn’t a total environmental disaster while in office, but his record isn’t strong enough to draw significant crossover on that issue, IMHO. Udall, on the other hand, has the family name, the Boulder background, and the legislative credentials to keep the enviros firmly on his side.
McInnis stands to benefit more from crossover by small-government, old-style Dems who have never been thrilled with the enviro takeover of the Democratic Party (and there are a lot of these folks in the rural parts of Colorado).
who sometimes cross over to a Moderate D.
Lauren, what issues are important to you as a moderate “R”.
Let’s see, I’m pro business, pro Capitalism, anti redistribution of wealth, anti Estate tax, pro gay marriage-shot down, so now I’m pro civil union, small government, fiscal conservative, anti death penalty, anti gun control, pro civil liberties, anti nanny legislation, anti(over)regulation, pro pot legalization/drug decriminalization, pro green incentives green entrepreneurs….
Exclusions apply, inquire within
Obviously, you don’t drink the Kool-Aid and think for yourself. Cuppa tea, sweetheart?
What makes you think that wealth will be redistributed? Define nanny legislations. Do you have a floor where the estate tax starts or are you against all levels? What is over regulation?
You are such a pain! Always wanting sources and explanations. Geez!
1. When I hear higher tax rates being proposed for Americans who make more money, I think “redistribution”.
2. Nanny legislation: We want to take care of you, for your own good. Seat belt laws, helmet laws, smoking bans, etc. I’ll take care of me, the government can take care of pot holes.
3. Against all Estate taxes. We pay taxes all our lives on the money left in the Estate. Our kids, namely Paris Hilton, shouldn’t have to pay again.
4. Over regulation: When teachers can’t spend one on one time with kids because they are filling out accountability forms, that’s over regulation. When social workers can only see the children on their caseloads once per month because they are filling out forms, that’s over regulation. When nurses can’t spend as much time with their patients as they used to because they are filling out forms, that’s over regulation. Ever tried to split off a piece of your parents’ land to build a house? Ever had to account for a historic streetscaping project after receiving government grants? I could go on, but you get the drift. When regulation hurts more than it helps, it should be re-evaluated and de-regulated.
they learn about his “Healthy Forests Act” that was basically a big giveaway for logging companies and an environmental scam they won’t.