President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
52%↑
48%↓
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
September 19, 2007 09:56 PM UTC
14 Comments
he’s tired of getting kicked in the teeth by his “moderate Republican” friends.
He’s seen the future and it isn’t with the Republicans, moderate or otherwise. In any case, I am glad to see him voting right.
Allard voted NO. I wonder how Schaffer would have voted?
This is a post-9/11 world, dontchya know.
I forgot that “terror” didn’t exist until 2001.
I’m having trouble getting past how you are using the label “liberal.” and “conservative.”
Let me offer my opinion that the truly CONSERVATIVE position on Iraq is that we have no bizness invading other countries that pose no threat,
and that we ought to be backing out of that anti-freedom, anti-democracy, anti-“right of self determination” endeavor post haste.
A leading conservative voice on this issue is Ron Paul.
From how I understand the concept of “Conservatism,” the position that Senator Salazar is moving toward on Iraq is increasingly Conservative.
I would say that it was exceedingly liberal, but not libertarian, of President Bush to invade Iraq in order to bestow Democracy on them.
I would say that, in this one very important respect, the neoconservatives who persuaded the President to invade were liberal extremists.
Similar argument for Habeas Corpus.
It is characteristically Conservative to want to stick to,
or in this case go back to,
our philosophical and political roots.
It is characteristically Liberal to experiment with untested new schemes that may or may not jeopardize this 231-year-old political experiment in self governance.
/
You might be referring to old liberalism (19th century?) while the other posters are referring to contemporary times: e.g. welfare-state.
Either way, “liberal” and “conservative” are overused to the point they don’t describe anything.
The larger issue is not whether or not the way Salazar voted was liberal or conservative, but whether or not I thought he acted appropriately. In this instance he did.
And your examply of “welfare-state” still doesn’t hit it, since contemporary liberals are for a government “for the people, by the poeple, of the people,” which would be in the best interest of the poeple, while contemporary conservatives are for a goverment “for wallstreet, by wallstreet, of wallstreet.”
“Welfare” or big government is not really the issue, but rather who the government is going to serve; being which class of people.
So, if you believe Salazar was acting in the best interests of the people, he was voting as a liberal.
have you been confused by all American political discourse for the last 50 years?
You are using traditional definitions which have no bearing on modern American politics. I’m not at all sure how someone who has followed politics in the United States at any point in the last 50 years couldn’t get past my usage of the term “liberal” and “conservative.”
Honestly, this is an argument an undergrad who just finished his first political philosophy class.
when you use those labels incorrectly.
you’re just being ridiculously pedantic.