President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta



CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson



CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd



CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese



CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore



CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk



CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans



State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
August 24, 2007 04:55 PM UTC

Schaffer Ridiculed over "Passing Period" Funding Cut

  • by: Colorado Pols

A letter to the editor in today’s Rocky Mountain News revisits a story from last week that we saw, but were too busy covering the Schaffer donor scandal to pay much attention to:

What would Bob Schaffer propose educators do with students during the “non-essential” passing periods?

The students are in school; they have to have time to go from one class to the next, especially in the high school environment. Not counting passing time as a real-time, in-school activity is not feasible and a ridiculous issue to address…

Educators are not wasting the taxpayers’ money. However, legislators sniveling about minor issues do waste the taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars.

For those of you who don’t know what the author is talking about, it’s this story from the August 14th Rocky:

Some school districts are collecting state money for the time students spend changing classes, a member of the state Board of Education said Monday.

Board member Bob Schaffer said it is “quite a stretch” to count the five minutes between classes as part of the educational day…

Schaffer, a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in 2008, will propose a rule change when the state board meets in September.

Current rules don’t address whether districts can count the passing period as part of the school day, in effect leaving the decision to local school boards.

Educators said the money for passing periods must be viewed in the context of a school finance system that is riddled with anomalies.

For example, Jefferson County is owed $56 million of state and federal money for services to handicapped students – far more than the $39 million the state’s largest district collects in state aid for passing periods, said Superintendent Cindy Stevenson.

The district is owed $12 million for vocational education and $13 million for transportation…

She called Schaffer’s concern ridiculous.

State Board of Education member Evie Hudak, who represents Jefferson County, said, “If you start to nitpick it, you can get into a lot of discussions it’s not worth our time to have.”

Our view: of course it’s ridiculous, but there are always a few conservative activists out there who will cheer this kind of thing on no matter how baseless or myopic the “concern” may be.

Having said that, most of those people are already firmly in Schaffer’s camp anyway, and proposals like this one can be effortlessly spun to the rest of the state–the same majority of Colorado voters who approved Referendum C and Amendment 23–as evidence that Schaffer is a reactionary nut.

It’s yet another in a growing tally of issues where Schaffer has positioned himself well to the right of the average Colorado voter, pleasing his base, while Democrat opponent Mark Udall has moved to the center–upsetting some liberals but placing himself in what should ultimately be a much more electable position.


39 thoughts on “Schaffer Ridiculed over “Passing Period” Funding Cut

    1. Schaffer doesn’t stand alone on this. He has company from the GOPer’s in the Colorado Senate. They are lining up rank ‘n file on this ridiculous position, wanting to steal hallway time from public student to start up more charter school. http://www.colorados

      1. This proposal sounds ridiculous to *me*, but then I am a Democrat.  It sounds like fairly common or garden Republicanism in this state, though.  After all, it trims budgets meaning taxes can be cut, and those unionized teachers are overpaid anyway, right?  I wonder if there is something else going on with Schaffer.  If he were doing well and seemed confident, he could have carried this off.  But he already seems weakened for some reason I don’t entirely understand.  So everything seems awkward.

  1. On Face the State last week and I posted this and stand by it.

    I am to assume that you clock out every second that you are checking personal email, using the internet to post on a blog, etc?

    While not actually teaching during those 5 minutes it’s not as though the teachers are on a “break” or are not interacting with students.

    This is pointless grandstanding and useless nitpicking

    FWIW – I am not a teacher and I’m not related to a teacher. I have problems with CEA and am Pro-Charter – like all good Denver Democrats 😉

    But this is just idiotic.

  2. Lest anyone think Schaffer isn’t attacking public education this is what he said on his campaign website in 2000 on the page entitled Where We Stand:

    “Republicans are for free market schools.  Democrats are for government-owned monopoly schools.”

    In other words, all democrats are for exclusive “government-owned monoply schools” and Republicans support “free market schools.”  Such broad statements aren’t just wrong, they’re nuts.  He simply doesn’t believe or support the public education system and will do anything to topple it but he doesn’t have a real alternative except using tax revenues (our money) to pay private corporations to operate our education system which has a spotty record of success.

    Again, this demonstrates that so called “conservatives” like Mr. Schaffer are nothing of the kind.  They are radical extremists who are bent on dismantling our existing institutions and returning us to a world that never existed.  They appeal to a sense of the past but in reality they want to take us to a place we have never been before.  True conservatism supports existing institutions while allowing for incremental change when justified by facts and principles.

    His so called free market schools avoids the real and very difficult issues faced by our education system.  For example, how do we motivate a child who comes from a home where there is only one parent who either works several jobs and isn’t involved in his/her child’s education, or a home where the parent(s) don’t value education.  Those are difficult scenarios that the “free market” does not inherently have a solution for because the so called “market” means nothing to the parents descibed above.  How do we insure that children in those situations have a good chance of receiving a decent education?  I must admit, I don’t have the answer but blaming, as Schaffer constantly does, these kind of challenges on the teachers union or “public education” is not only silly, it leads to proposed solutions that are divorced from the problems at hand. 

    The teachers union and the public schools are not the origin of these issues.  These problems emanate from how our society has developed over the past half century.  In that context, dismantling our public education system in favor of private corporate education is both bizarre and unproductive.  It simply doesn’t address the real issues. 

  3. Schaffer is burnt toast.

    No way he is in the race to stay.

    The National Republican Senate Committee will kick him aside the same way the Democratic Senate Committee cast aside Mike Miles in 2004. Only differnce is that Schaffer will withdrawal.

    The questions that now remain are:

    What day will Schaffer withdrawal?

    What will be his excuse?

    Who will replace him?

    If it is Hank Brown his catchy campaign song will be THE MAN WHO FIRED WARD CHURCHILL sung to the beat of the Man who Shot Liberty Valance.

    Troy Eid is an intriguing possibility as well. Can raise money, nice family and has done an OK job as US Attorney.

          1. that he’d be out by Halloween. That’s assuming the party moves quickly to replace him and start over. Of course that assumption is based on the assumption of rational and competent decision making by the Colorado GOP. Of course we all know what they say about assumptions, they make an ass out of you and Dick Wadhams.

        1.   The Power-That-Be are probably in contact with the replacement candidate (Brown, Eid or Owens) as we are posting on here. 
            Remember how quickly Owens came up with Pete Coors after being cornered into giving his endorsement to B.S.  What was it, about 18 hours later that B.O. unendorsed B.S. and ran off with the Beer Baron?

      1. WHEN:  Sept. 15, 2007
        WHERE:  Larimer County
        WHY:  To spend more time with his family
        HOW:  By withdrawing and endorsing the new party establishment candidate (Hank Brown, Troy Eid or Bill Owens) in the spirit of party unity

            1. would probably do it.  He’s the ambitious up-and-coming US Attorney, maybe looking for his next step. BO is just too controversial (RINO accusations) in his own party, and I think it would be just too much for him to do something like this to Shaffer AGAIN.

              You have to be so far damn right to be acceptable to the Colorado GOP, which in turn makes you unelectable.  Funny how that works, or dosen’t !

    1. From his bio he is about 67.  So he’d be 68 at the start of his term and 74 at the end of it.  Obviously plenty of the senators hang around that long and longer, but that’s usually when they’ve been elected five times in a row and own the position.  Maybe HB isn’t enticed by the idea of a hotly contested Senate race in a year not shaping up well for Republicans, when he can kick back in his CU office and enjoy how good the placing is looking since he’s been there.

      In any case, if neither he nor Owens will step up, the Repubs might as well stick with Schaffer.  I can’t see anyone else doing any better.

      1. The former right winger and charter member of the Bill Armstrong fan club remade  now as a moderate elder statesman is unbeatable should he choose to run.  It will not be a close race.  If Hammering Hank decides to run he becomes the instant favorite. 

        1. …as a Dem, Hank would be my nightmare.  Heck, even I really like his accomplishments – including the Ward thing – and respect his solid work.  If he were running against Ken Salazar I could see myself voting for him, I’m so pissed off at KS. The republic would be in good hands with him.

          Owens would give Udall a good run, too, but he has a lot of skeletons in the electoral closet.

          BS?  Start printing the letterheads, Senator Mark Udall.

    2. I agree that in the end Mr. Schaffer will withdraw and spending time with his family isn’t the real reason.  He doesn’t have the “fire in the belly” for a campaign.  Someone who does, wouldn’t make these mistakes.

      More importantly, in my humble opinion, this is another indication of how out of touch the Republican Party is with the mainstream in Colorado.  Using this latest foray into the ridiculous as an example, both Mr. Schaffer and the Republican state senators think its a great idea to take money away from our public schools by factoring out the money represented by the five minutes between classes in our high schools.  Their idea is any action that can be used to eviserate and destroy public institutions, like schools, should be done, regardless of the consequences.  These same people are going around the state stating that the reason Bill Ritter won last year is because the Republican Party wasn’t conservative enough.  Utter nonsense.  The Republican Party and the Republican candidates bought off on every right wing position one can imagine last year, and lost in one of the worst defeats the Party has ever suffered in Colorado.  To say such things, means they live in a cloistered cocoon detached from Colorado voters.

      These people aren’t interested in the least with the opinions of moderate Republicans like myself.  We are merely a group of registered voters who have but one purpose.  Vote the Republican ticket and don’t take positions or assert values other than the ones the wingnuts assert.

      It is time for the Republican moderates to go where they are respected and wanted.  The Democrats.  We need to join other like minded people like Governor Bill Ritter and move our state and nation, not only in a rational direction, but also in a direction that considers the complexities of everyday life and the world.  Lets join with Democrats because we share the same values.

      Last night on the CNN speical about extremism in religion (Jewish, Muslim and Christain), the reporter interviewed Ralph Reed, the former head of the Christain coalition, who was openly disdainful of moderate Republicans as people who don’t believe in anything or possess values.  People like Mr. Reed have captured the Republican Party nationwide, including here in Colorado. 

        1. I’ve been a Republican, including a Republican activist, for almost half a century and a registered Republican all of my adult life.  My registration is Republican but I’m not sure what you mean by “affiliate as a moderate Republican.”  Please clarify and I will be glad to respond.  I apoligize if I’m missing the obvvious.

            1. From my perspective, I became politically active when Barry Goldwater ran for President.  His libertarian hands off approach appealed to me while allowing for a strong national defense.

              Since then, in my opinion, the party has been taken over by a brand of conservatism, led by the religious right, that I believe has divided the Party into two basic groups who no longer share enough common values to remain in the same political coalition.  As I stated in a post several days ago, right wing conservatives took over the party fair and square by taking over from the grass roots up.

              On to the basic value differences.  First and foremost I believe the right wing conservatives are not, as they think, attempting to return the nation to the principles held by our founding fathers.  In reality, they are attempting to overturn the principles of the Enlightenment that was the foundation of the American Revolution.  The Enlightenment was aimed at separating an individual’s religious beliefs from his or her identity with the state.  Due to the devastating religious wars between protestants and catholics, European civilization had to find a way to separate religion and the state.  When there are competing religious ideologies and each is supported by a government, there is no room for compromise but a real possibility for war that, in the end, is sesnseless because neither side will change their religious views.  The religious conservatives want to impose religion upon the public and it is my belief a specific brand if they have the chance.  I will take care of my religion myself.  No need for the government to do it.

              The injection of religion into government that the right wing conservatives would like also pushes aside reason and common sense.  I know people disagree but in my opinion evolution, whether proven or not, is a scientific theory and creationism is a religious belief.  To me, there really isn’t a conflict between the two.  I can reconcile both, but the religious conservatives want to impose the idea the world is only 5,000 years old on all of us.  Frankly, I don’t believe that is true and science has proven them flat wrong.  If a school wants to offer a class on religion that includes the fact that some Christians believe in creationism that is fine with me, but I’m not going to support candidates or a politcal party that wants to override hard science.  If we forgo reason, all is lost.

              Second, from my humble perspective, conservatism means preserving existing institutions while allowing for change when facts and reason dictate it.  The people who control the Republican Party have a basic view that a public institution is evil and must be destroyed or crippled to the point it cannot function, and then in turn they will blame the instution for not functioning properly.

              TABOR is the best example of this.  To me, “the starve it until we can drown it in the bathtub” philosophy is unreasonable and unsupported by history.  On top of that TABOR is far more than a fiscal and budget amendment.  It represents the fundamental distrust the right wing conservatives have for the voting public.  They do not trust the voters to elect individuals to office who will implement their philosophy or policy preferences.  TABOR was designed to severely limit those choices even if so called “liberals” are elected.  It seems to me the founding fathers, including those who founded Colorado, established a government so the voters could elect officials who would adopt and implement the poicies the voters had selected.  The right wing doesn’t like that because it means we all have to accept the fact that at different times people and policies we don’t like will have majority support.  From the right wing conservatives perspective, their principles are the only ones worthy of consideration. Such rigidity, if allowed to rein, again will mean the demise of the United States.  As an aside, the initiative process was originally adopted in the early 20th Century so voters could correct specific laws or issues a given legislature failed to amend or remedy.  It was never intended to revamp our basic system of government or hamstring the voters policy preferences but the right wing conservatives believe otherwise.

              Finally (there is more but this post is probaly already too long), the fundamentalist religious philosphy that dominates the Republican Party is a prescription for disaster due to its absolutism.  Since many of the right wing religious conservatives believe their policy preferences are ordained and approved by God, they can’t admit that those principles are wrong because to do so is stating that God is wrong.  When injected into politics, this creates a situation where compromise is impossible and, in the end, results in a rigidity that denies facts and reason and leads politicians to make decisions that are not in the best interest of the United States.  I believe the decision to invade Iraq can be traced back to that kind of mindset.

              As I said there is more but this probably too long already.  I am interested in your perspective on all of this. 


              1. First off, you don’t strike me as a “moderate”.  You strike me as a conservative who thinks they’re a moderate because they’re not Ralph Reed.  Understandable why you would feel that way.

                I don’t want to get too much into my political views, but the situation warrants that to some degree.  I haven’t been involved nearly as long as you-I got started when I was 17, barely seven years ago.  I would probably be categorized as a “religious conservative”, at least in the sense that some of my political beliefs are fed to a degree on my religious beliefs.  So as a young “religious” conservative, I offer some of my observations.

                The Republican party has shifted rightward, but I see a few different reasons for that.  From what I have seen from history, conservatives weren’t as activist as they are now.  The question begs to be asked “why is that?”  From what I see, the push rightward is a result of what religious conservatives see as an assault on some basic things.  Generally speaking, I think that religious conservatives are content with being left along.  But when the extremes start making a big deal over “Under God” in the pledge, or over Christmas trees, they get fired up.  Add to that what looks like a constant assault on religious institutions, they feel that the only way to fight back is to be equally activist as their counterparts.  The down side to this is that the activist type seems to be made up in large part by extremists.  And such are the state of affairs.  But the solution to this isn’t switching to the Democrats.  As much as the Ralph Reed types bug me, the answer can’t be running away.  The answer is to continue to be involved and work for the segment of the party you believe in.

                In my mind, the problem with the Republican party isn’t necessarily the extreme right-it’s that the Republican party has betrayed the trust of the American people by not being conservative enough on **certain** issues.  Before I get jumped here, let me explain.

                1)  Iraq and the Public’s perception of Iraq
                Bush won re-election by basically saying “I have the leadership to finish what I started, not Senator ‘I voted for it before I voted against it'”.  The American people put their trust in him and gave him another term.  They expanded Republican majorities in both the House and the Senate, despite the fact that the war wasn’t going great.  How did Bush celebrate?  Did he produce new ideas of tackling the Iraq war?  Did Republicans hold his feet to the fire?  No-he got his new term, said “thank you”, and then pushed social security accounts.  It’s like telling your wife that you’re going to take her to dinner and then take her to a bowling alley.  I think that highlights when the American people started to feel betrayed.

                2)  Corruption
                Republicans were swept into power in 1994 in part because the American people viewed the Democrats as “corrupt” (like the House bank account fiasco).  Republicans rode in on a high horse.  But when America had to find out that a Congressman was hitting on underage pages from a liberal blogger, the American people felt betrayed (and rightly so).

                3)  Spending
                No matter how some fragments of the party felt about gay rights, guns, the military, vouchers, etc. the one unifying issue was spending.  It has been and can yet be our most powerful issue.  The perception that Dems were “tax and spend liberals” helped us gain control in 1994.  But with issues like the bridge to nowhere creeping up, we earned the label of “borrow and spend conservatives”.  Spending to retain power is a sure-fire way of betraying our own values as well as the American people.

                In short, the Republican party went through the same cycle in 12 years as Dems did in 40-they got power, drifted away from the principals that got them into power, became corrupt and refused to deal with it, and viewed the retention of that power as more important than their values.

                But leaving to another party isn’t going to fix anything.  The values of the typical Democrat do not represent the values of a Republican.  What you’re thinking about is like getting into an argument with your girlfriend, and dumping her for her ugly sister.  Help the rest of us “sensible conservatives” rebuild the party and make it great again.

                1. what you mean as the “constant assault on religious institutions?”

                  I really do not get it.  I really am stymied when conservatives get into how Christmas is being “attacked.”  I would love for some Christian to tell me what constitutes this attitude?  What other religion in the USA has their holiday so visible, so enamoured and respected that all public institutions are closed to support it.  Does the post office, or do public schools close on Rosh HaShanah  or Yom Kippur or Ramadan???  While occasionally out here in CO I now see some symbols for Jewish celebrations in stores, when I first moved here, my best friend (who was Jewish) and I went shopping as she wanted to buy a Menorah.  We not only could not find one here, we couldn’t find a salesclerk who even knew what it was.  That was in 1982.  I grew up on the East coast and knew people of many differing backgrounds.  Maybe that is why I do not feel threatened.  I KNEW that it was Christianity that was the MAJOR religion, and remains so. 

                  I know you are very young (from your post) which frankly shocks me.  But I went to a school at time when prayer was in schools and those of us who were not mainstream protestants were made to feel inferior for not knowing the prayer or what to do. 

                  I have no problem with the religion of others.  My spirituality is private and I like it that way.  I never understood how Christians who actually read the new testament refuse to listen to what Jesus preached:  humility was the cornerstone of his ministry. 
                  So why the insistence on public prayer when this is what Jesus said:
                  “Whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, because they love to pray while standing in synagogues and on street corners so that people can see them. Truly I say to you, they have their reward. But whenever you pray, go into your room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you” (Matthew 6:5-6).

                  Again I just don’t get it.

                  I am a liberal democrat and am proud of that.  I believe in being open minded to others.  So I am trying to understand.
                  If the religious right really wants to follow the teachings of the man whose name they use, why is the only thing they talk about are things Jesus barely mentioned.

                  Just so you know, I never have been anything but a liberal democrat.  And I have never understood how people who claim to be religious could support plutocracy and have a clear conscience.

                  1. I’m not talking about prayer in schools.  As I’ve said since I became political “There will be prayer in school as long as there are tests in school”.

                    But ever since I realized the “wonderful world of politics”, I have seen what looks to me like an assault on Christian religion.  It’s removing things like the ten commandments, or not allowing Christmas displays, or people getting upset over hearing “merry Christmas”, or getting rid of “under God” from the pledge, all under the argument of “separation of church and state”, but if a school in California wants to make kids go on a field trip to a Mosque, that’s ok (a news story that was covered mostly on the radio, I could probably find the article if you really wanted, but hopefully you can take my word on it).  In my view it seems like an assault on just the religions that liberals don’t seem to like.

                    Call me a literalist, but I’m fine with the phrase under God, the ten commandments, etc. because those all have secular significance.  The government isn’t running a state religion, which is what I think that amendment was talking about.  If the government started offering tax credits for attendance of a particular church, that’s one thing.  But most of the lawsuits I’ve seen over the separation of church and state have seemed ridiculous

                    1. as you probably know, was inserted into the original 1890’s pledge as a tweak to the Soviets in 1955 or so. 

                      The pledge itself was written and promulgated by a socialist, labor organizing teacher, not exactly the model most conservatives would hold up.

                      “Under God” should be stricken from official statements, documents, and currency. We are a secular nation.  If you want to hang the Ten Commandments (which version?) in your home, have at it.  It has no place in the public sphere.

                    2. I’ll make it short.  I have no problem with the government keeping statements that both have historical significance and religious significance. 

                    3. you have bought the “meme” and spin that Christmas is under assault.  And you failed to answer the question I posed.  Comparitively speaking, the Christian religious holidays are supported more than the holidays of all other religions combined and yet you still think that Christmas is being unfairly targeted?  Are you serious?

                      I have never ever met one person who was told they could not, or should not say Merry Christmas as a personal choice.  But people like you interpret some stores choosing to NOT single out Christmas as the only holiday to celebrate is interpreted as an attack.  What it is, in fact, is one of the things our Founding Fathers feared the most: the tyranny of the majority.

                      Since some stores decided to say “Happy Holidays” thus being inclusive, suddenly Christians are claiming victimhood.  Can you seriously not see how ridiculous that is?  So shouldn’t every Jew who is not given the greeting of Happy Channukka by stores be considered a victim?  Shouldn’t every Muslim who has not had  Ramadaan acknowledged have the right to claim discrimination?

                      Who are you to decide for me or others that God exists and we must believe that and recite it repetitively so has to indoctrinate or be indoctrinated?  The Ten Commandments are from the old testament and they are religious by origin.
                      Since historically most countries/civilizations were theocracies, the tyranny of the majority worked.  The Founding Fathers however, being educated and seeing first hand what that kind of tyranny does, smartly wanted no parts of it.  In England, less one be of the same faith as the King, life was miserable, death and imprisonment a strong possibility. 

                      Your belief in a god should have no bearing on my life…ever. 

                      And again, you avoided answering other questions.  Why do Christians deny the words of Jesus.  He was as clear as can be.  Over 500 instances of his preaching his mission; helping the poor. Yet the right wing republican party is the most anti poor people group in the history of the country.  Not since the robber barons of the gilded age has the government been as against the interest of the poorest in our nation than the administrations since Reagan.  Never has hypocrisy served government so well.  While railing that Christans are being victimized because a few stores did not demand Merry Christmas be the only greeting, this right wing supports denying health care to poor children.  Screaming for the ten commandments to be on display while cheering for politicians who would deny health care to the poor, deny an increase in minimum wage while giving tax cuts to the likes of the Hiltons is not Christian at all.

                      “Whatever you do to the least of me, you do to me…”
                      Those are the words of the man whose name Christianity has adopted. Yes those same Christians vote in mass for politicians who have increased poverty at a ridiculous rates and have filled the pockets of greedy corporatists.

                      The Ten Commandments on some steps will not save a person who is starving or sick or dying.  Saying “under God” will not keep a homeless person warm.  Claiming victim status because someone did not say Merry Christmas is absolutely the most outrageous and ridiculous claim of the right yet.
                      Screaming for pro life while only believing on pro birth is not a Christian value.  What happens to all the babies born who end up living in poverty and with no health care?  They live in a system where their government only cares if they are born and cares nothing about what happens to them when they are two or three or ten and are sick and unable to get health care. 

                      You have given me nothing but the same Fox/O’Reilly/Limbaugh spin I have been hearing for years.  If you truly believe this nonsense, and seriously are unable to see the tragedy and shallowness of caring more about the institution of religion than about the people Jesus came to save, then I give up.  Jesus did not throw the poor, the homeless, the cripples out of the temple.  He railed against the moneychangers (bankers and creditors) and against the Pharisees (the religious leaders) who cared more about the temple and the symbols of religion than about the people.
                      Caring more about words and symbols than about the poor and weak is the same old, same old hypocrisy that crucified the very liberal, very rebellious against the status quo Jesus.

                      You are young. Hopefully some day you will learn the truth.

      1. This state and this country needs a strong 2 party system. We need a side that looks to the private sector first for solutions. We need a side that says why first when a new program is proposed. We need an opponent to keep us honest.

        Fight for your party. You moderates are the only long-term road to success for the Repubs so you will win eventually.

        – dave (a lifelong Dem)

        1. is what makes moderates important. They are the swing voters, the ones that will cry foul when a party swings too far out of the mainstream. Rep 36’s postings are very interesting. He (she) sounds very conservative but is absolutely set against the party. Voting with a party just because of your affiliation simply allows the party to stand for anything without recourse.

          Rep 36 (what does 36 stand for?) I agree w/ a lot of what you say. I feel that a newer smaller faction of the party has taken charge because they are more passionate, committed, and organized. Our elected officials are either of that faction or they are affected by that faction because of their power at the polls.

          I read with interest the recent quotes in the story about the state funding student’s passing periods. I think Nancy Spence is a rational, effective legislator. I can’t believe that she is really set off by this issue. Our officials are being pulled further right. Our moderate faction is becoming more disenfranchised and the trend looks bad until there is a correction.

    3. I don’t think the Repubs see this as a big deal. Just because we do does not mean that they do. Stuff comes up in campaigns and you move past it.

      Keep in mind that Wadhams still does not seem to understand that their slow and lousy response to macaca is what cost Allen his seat.

      I think BS stays.

      1. State GOP is skittish on allowing Primaries, and when you look at what happened with Holtzman before they did avert a Primary, it’s understandable.  The thing seems to be lining up key races with only one candidate, and there are arguments both for and against that.  I wouldn’t be surprised if Ds in CD2 and CD4 come to regret not narrowing the field themselves and spending money on the general. 
        I really think Brown would rather not run again and Troy Eid already withdrew from a race in the last cycle when he accepted a positon with the US Attorney.  Is he ready to be out of there and become a candidate again?
        As far as BO goes, he epitomizes RINO to a lot of Rs in the state and wouldn’t go over well (not to put too fine a point on it).  Given that at least one possible condidate has been quietly talked out of the race already, I see PR disaster and chaos if they try to start over again.

        1.   Troy Eid has another problem should he run….his wife a/k/a Associate Justice Allison Eid of the Colo. Supreme Court. 
            Can she actively campaign for her husband in a partisan election while remaining a state Supreme Court justice?
            If not and if he choses to run, it’s a big sacrafice for him to ask her to make by resigning so he could campaign as a Republican for a Senate seat in what is shaping up to be at least as toxic a campaign environment as ’06 was for Republicans.

          1. No way on Hank
            Troy’s ambitious but not crazy. He’s doing well for now.
            BO is comfortable
            BS is a smart, credible candidate that has been taken a lot of hostile fire. While he’s to the right of me, he’s exactly what the republican party wants right now. Whether that wins is another discussion.


Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

50 readers online now


Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!