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
(D) David Seligman
40%
40%
30%
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) Trisha Calvarese
(D) Eileen Laubacher
90%
20%
20%
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%
February 15, 2008 07:25 PM UTC
57 Comments
Sorry, CRANKYRepublican. That 3rd wheel you are picking on elsewhere is going to make my man the top dog, and your man the 2nd banana again. Get over it.
Ok, this is a diary based on a letter to the editor which was based on poor reporting by the Gazette! Three degrees of spin! Its like that game “telephone” kids play where the message becomes more and more skewed with each passing.
Anyone who was at Lamborn’s speech can varify that he clearly said
“…in the political world you can’t show leadership until you’ve been elected…” The comment was in the specific contexts of elective politics.
Lamborn does not disrespect other forms of leadership!
I wish I had seen this crummy excuse for a Diary sooner to I could refute it with the facts! For shame Gazette and GOPpundit!
I kind of scratched my head when I read that letter in the Gazette. Those four words that were left out make all the difference. Jeff and his people continue to run a dirty campaign–pathetic. I would not expect much else from a guy who has been playing politics since he was a teenager.
Waiting for Chairman Garcia to throw a yellow flag………………….um, don’t think that is going to happen nevermind.
The Gazette is NOT in Crank’s camp. If you want indisputable proof of that, look at the complete and total lack of coverage of the Bartha scandal. It made the front page of the Hill and AOL, but the Gazette did not run the story. Nice try. Crank has and will run an ethical and clean campaign. Quit trying to use Clintonesque tactics and blame other people for the ethical shortcomings of your candidates.
Don’t you mean the Bartha smearjob? Let’s see, the Crank campaign took a recorded message from a private family’s voicemail and made it into a youtube video in order to defame an opponent?
And that’s the sign of a clean campaign?
And don’t try to say that wasn’t Crank’s campaign doing it. I know it wasn’t the Rayburn campaign, and I’m pretty sure Lamborn’s people didn’t put it online.
Or deliberately misquoting a speech in order to score some cheap political points in the local paper. Crank sent Nate Fisk over to Lamborn’s rally to tape the speech, so you know they didn’t misquote it on accident.
And that’s the sign of a clean campaign?
What about that bogus FEC lawsuit that Robert Gardener filed on behalf of Crank last election. Seems the Crank campaign liked to sell the story that Lamborn and the CCC and CFG were in cahoots. The lawsuit that alleged campaign fraud (which people on this site still seem to think happened). The one that Gardener later denounced, and got thrown out by the FEC.
Is that the clean campaign you’re talking about?
How about having Garcia try and embarrass Rayburn for petitioning on by fabricating this caucus pledge, and bullying candidates with it.
Maybe that’s part of Crank’s clean campaign.
Maybe you’re talking about last cycle when Crank tried to have Lamborn’s son arrested. Crank claimed that Lamborn’s son was stealing signs. The DA threw the charges out since there was no evidence that any “crime” happened, but Crank used the opportunity to try and score more cheap political points.
That must be the clean campaign you’re talking about.
So now it is dirty campaigning for a private citizen to release a voicemail of their Congressman? As far as I can tell, the tape was released in its’ entirety. That is releasing facts, not smears.
As far as Lamborn’s son, he was committing a crime and Crank did not pursue it. It is illegal to infringe on a federal election as it is illegal to destroy other peoples’ property. Your argument is the same as the Democrats made with Linda Tripp… shoot the messenger!
Greg Garcia is not part of the Crank Campaign. That is fact and indisputable by any reasonable person. He is the best party chairman we have had.
Bob Gardner is an attorney and there was substantial merritt to his law suit. He dropped his suit because he was concerned that a Democrat would be elected, not because there was a lack of evidence. What are the chances that the Hotaling brothers were not talking to each other about the campaign?
You have to face it, Doug Lamborn is the worst of all Republican politicians. He has sold out ethics and integrity for power. And now his power has corrupted him and his supporters so much that they are blind to the truth. This is why Republicans lost control of the House and Senate and why I believe Lamborn needs to be voted out of office in disgrace.
“He thanked his volunteers, he thanked his three sons, one of whom had been accused of unlawfully yanking up a Crank yard signs during the campaign – and who had, just that day, been “completely exonerated” by the police.”
http://www.csindy.com/gyrobase…
In a one-page letter sent to Lamborn campaign manager Jon Hotaling on Dec. 22, FEC General Counsel Lawrence Norton wrote that the commission found no reason to think the campaign guilty of “knowingly accepting prohibited inkind contributions in the form of coordinated communications” and said the FEC was closing its file in the matter.
http://www.gazette.com/article…
You have to face it. Jeff Crank desperately wants to be in Congress. He’s trying anything and everything he can to get elected. On one hand, I admire his tenacity, on the other, I loathe his tactics.
All I have seen from Rayburn and Lamborn supporters on this site is polite conversation and arguments in support of their candidates.
All I have seen from Crank supporters (yourself, CD5-line Gopundit) is vitriol, name calling (‘worst of all Republicans” for example), and character assassinations.
would try to deny the connection between the Crank campaign and EPC GOP headquarters. What kind of chairman has someone spy on a sitting congressmans announcement party? Kyle taped the entire speech. Within 15 minutes of his leaving the party Greg was on the phone to Robin Coran accusing her of lying about the pledge that Doug and Bentley refused to sign. Like him or not, Doug Lamborn is an elected congressman and until someone unseats him he deserves the respect that office brings.
You think he is the best chairman the county has had? Maybe you weren’t at the caucus. Maybe you aren’t a division leader who had to postpone their meeting several times until they were held outside the allowable time. Maybe when YOU got your caucus results the phone numbers were not incomplete. At least, when Lee Gilbert “simply didn’t get it done” he had the balls to appologize. Unlike Greg “Have I got an excuse for you” Garcia.
And your line of logic contradicts itself. You quote a line from a recent letter in defense of your case against Doug Lamborn.
But then you say, that Rayburn’s experience as a General Officer does not qualify him to lead in Washington.
So apparentley by your reasoning the only candidate qualified to lead in Washington is not the career politician or the Major General, but only the small business man and corporate lobbyist.
And you accuse Rayburn and Lamborn of arrogance.
I would not encourage Petraeus to run for office either immediately after he retires.
He supports the right for responsible adults to carry permitted firearms into public schools. Like you, he believes that the horrific effects of Columbine, Illinois, VT, etc. could have been lessened if not altogether prevented if students and faculty were able to carry guns.
I think our country can use more men like Patraeus and Rayburn in the ranks of our Representatives, especially at a time of war and uncertainty.
These leaders are highly suited to deal with the politics and bureaucracy that go with the task of standing for the principles that are most important for our nation.
I also do not think that your claim that this level of military service does not qualify them for public service in Washington. I know for a fact that at its highest levels the military operates at the level of a small country. They have billions of dollars in their budgets, and control logistical operations at many different levels.
Rayburn’s experience in this matter includes serving as the defacto mayor of what was equivocally a small city (Air Base in Saudi Arabia). During this time Rayburn established a border security program, and controlled a $17 billion budget, amongst other duties.
This to me meets the criteria.
Rayburn was not the “Mayor” of anything. He can say that, but everyone who is familiar with the military knows better. As a commander, you are chosen for your position and evaluated by those above you in rank. In politics, you are evaluated by the public. A military commander is essentially a dictator in control of a command administrative economy. They are not CEOs and few companies hire generals to become CEOs because the jobs are so different.
I have nothing but respect for Rayburn’s military experience, but it is what it is. If he wanted to take over a dictator type position, he clearly has more experience with that than the other two candidates. But a Congressman is not a dictator style leader, they are influencers. No one has to do what they say, rather they must be good at coercing people into doing what is needed for the respective constituency. This is where Rayburn has zero experience, where Lamborn has been an utter failure, and where Crank’s true strength is.
We don’t need a Congressman who goes around thinking he is a leader, we need a Congressmen who can work with other people to get the job done for CD5’s interests. Maybe Rayburn will be that man some day, but today he clearly does not have the personal skills to work in the political environment to affect change for our district.
If someone understands working as a group to craft a good solution, and they have significant successful experience with real accomplishments in some field – then consider them.
Lamborn has shown he has no idea what working in a legislature is about – so no to him. But the other two – both have a decent background for congress.
His duties were similiar to that of a civil servant.
And I think you are wrong on this issue in general. When in the minority, as the GOP is and will likely be for some time, we need a leader, not a politician.
We need somebody who will inspire coalitions in congress to stand for conservative values. I would hate to have a politician in there who will be more concerned with wheeling and dealing, than leading the fight for what is right when we are in the minority.
Compromise will only earn us the favor of the left. A leader will face the opposition and fight to get what is in the interest of the 5th.
Read up on the history of politics in this country. The people who effected great change from the legislature did so by crafting great compromises by reaching out to as many as possible.
The ones who ranted on their own rarely even get an asterik in the history books. Twenty years from now no one will remember Kucinich or Paul. But they will remember both Clinton & Obama. And Huckabee may get an asterik.
would know that it was those in the minority who made the most noise and stood firmest accomplished the greatest things.
Take suffrage, slavery, and hopefully one-day abortion, as examples.
Your comments are precisely why we need a strong leader in Congress, a leader who can firmly gather coalitions of compromisers who aspire to be great.
knows that the only true example of the minority accomplishing what you’re trying to describe was with Civil Rights in the 60s. It wasn’t the abolitionists who led us to the Civil War and outlawed slavery – the Republican party that formed to oppose that wretched institution had more pragmatic goals in mind, namely bringing about the capitalistic system that depends on free labor. If they were as altruistic as the abolitionists were, there would have been real equality achieved during and after Reconstruction.
Women’s suffrage was also more pragmatic than idealistic. It started in the sparsely settled western territories that needed more voters than could be drawn from the male population. True, eastern suffragettes helped spread it nationwide but it took the practical example of western territories / states like Colorado to sell it.
As for abortion… well, that’s taking away a right, so it’s unlikely to become an outright reality. But your point about it being a minority movement is well taken. Gay rights, OTOH, may be the closest current movement that gets at the gist of what you’re describing.
I was think more about the first abolishionist movement led by Wilberforce in England.
As for abortion, I would see the end of abortion as restoring a right, the most basic constitutional right of Life. But I’m sure you liberals will work to ensure that a woman keeps the right to end the life of her unborn child.
But that argument is for another thread.
MLK was constantly being critisized for “compromising”. Read what James Bevel and Bob Moses were saying.
Abraham Lincoln’s entire time in office was determining exactly how far he could go and going that far – but no further.
FDR was slapped down by the senate when he attempted to pack the supreme court – and he then shut up on that issue.
Need I go on???
This is an unnecessary slap. Further, Bentley Rayburn does not “go around thinking he is a leader” he has already proven (at an early age) he is a fine leader, one who has served all of us for over 30 years, under dangerous and risky situations as well as administrative. Where do you get that “he clearly (?)does not have personal skills to work in the political environment…”??
Have you even spent any time communicating with or listening to him?
You say your Crank’s true strength is “coercing people,” In my opinion, Bentley Rayburn has the experience and ability to “convince and persuade” opponents of decisions which will BEST serve CD5’s interests. He has had diversified experience while in the Military and is a man of integrity.
We are fortunate a man such as Gen. Rayburn is willing to run for office.
To date, no one has explained to me why such an amazing leader can not persuade the Central Committee, which he was elected to with the most votes, to support him. Obviously you can not either. All I get is the Rayburn talking point that he is a leader because he was in a military position. The proof is in the pudding, he is not a political leader, at least not yet. To date, he has yet to show any political leadership.
I agree with the Rayburn camp that he had a stellar military record, but military “leaders” rarely make great politicians. It can happen, but they are completely different skills.
after he retires as a paid lobbyist. Interesting.
Leadership != leading in a specific occupation.
Just because you have led in elected positions does not necessarily qualify you to run a business or the military; neither does it necessarily disqualify you.
Lamborn thinks he’s the only qualified candidate because he’s the only one who’s been elected. Rayburn thinks he’s qualified to be a Representative because he’s been a military leader. Neither is logically valid.
I have not said one is more valid then the other. Each brings unique qualifications to the table.
My problem is with the spin coming from the Crank supporter who claims that Crank is the only qualified candidate, when nothing could be further from the truth.
I disagree. Both are valid. Both show leadership.
But just because you are a leader of the women’s soccer team does not mean you are qualified to lead the charge of the light brigade. Rayburn may suck as a soccer coach. They are different venues.
Doug Lamborn has 14 years experience as a LEGISLATOR, and has been elected and re elected running on his record 10 times. It’s relative to the position he is running for.
Crank and Rayburn have been elected to nothing.
One 2 year term and your out.
If that was true, we would have a whole new crop of freshmen Democrats that literally could not find the men’s room.
They’d all be hit on by Larry Craig and his wide stance… j/k
Logically both of gopstudent’s points were invalid, and you pretty much just re-iterated that.
Holding elected office is not the exclusive condition for being able to lead in elected office.
And holding another leadership role does not logically lead to qualification for leadership in elected office.
Whether or not those statements are true in this case, they are not true as a matter of logic.
of the average political spin artist out here. But you are absolutely correct nonetheless. Of course, this is politics so the rules of logic don’t always apply…
how do you understand what he is saying robert. You spin more than anyone on here, except for CD-5 Line, or GOPpundit perhaps.
and thank you for inadvertently proving my point.
Damn, after reading that title I thought he pulled a Michael Garcia !
Oh well.
to acknowledge the core issue here. The problem with both of their candidates is they have no leadership record as a legislator.
Voters can look at the legislative track record of elected officials to get an idea of how they will perform once elected. Due to the fact that Crank and Rayburn have never been elected to anything, they have no leadership record as a legislator that voters look to and determine if they will actually DO what the SAY.
They have never debated legislation while representing the constituents who elected them. They have never encountered the various special interest groups and lobbyists who apply pressure on which way to vote. Only Congressman Lamborn can say, “You can depend on me because my voting record backs up what I say.”
Bottom line: We do not need to send any more first time Republicans to congress who cave in to the Democrats once they get there. Conservative Republicans want a Congressman they can trust not to become a Washington insider that is willing to sign away his principles in order to get a swimming pool in the home district.
Such behavior was a key failure of the GOP in the 2006 congress where Republicans approved close to 15,000 earmarks at a cost of more than $10 billion. GOP leaders at the time defended this earmarking even after such embarrassments as the Alaska Bridge to Nowhere were exposed.
Doug Lamborn has proven he will fight against such behavior, even when it is present within his own Republican Party.
Congressional Quarterly looked at all of the votes cast in congress in 2007 and ranked all 202 Republicans according to how often they opposed Nancy Pelosi and the radical agenda of the Democrats. Who do you think was ranked #1 on the list?
Doug Lamborn!
The problem with Lamborn is not that he is a lock step Republican, but that he is weak. The reason he is being opposed is not for his record, but because people see that there is a better option waiting in the ranks.
Granted, Rayburn has never been elected to a political office. But that can be used as a boost to his credit. Many voters see career politicians as worthy of suspicion, and often the case rightfully so.
Lamborn is a good man to have in a majority Congress. But at this time of minority we need someone who will be a vocal and strong leader, not just someone who will coast along with the party line.
That is why Rayburn was motivated to try again. After listening to many local voices of discontent with Doug, Rayburn decided it best to step up and be the leader we need.
I can’t speak for Crank’s motivations for running again. I would imagine he is running because he still thinks that he has some weird right to the seat, and is still bitter.
In one year Lamborn has:
1) Been elected to the Freshman leadership delegation.
2) Been appointed to the House Armed Services Committee.
3) Stood up to the Democrats more than any other Republican in Congress.
4) Secured funding for an ICE office in Colorado Springs (something Crank was promising to do).
5) Gotten another brigade appointed to the Ft. Carson, which will bring millions of dollars to the local economy.
6) Secured funding for a veteran’s cemetary in El Paso County (something Rayburn was promising to do).
While the other two candidates are talking about what they might do when elected. Lamborn is out there accomplishing it.
Joel Hefley had more than enough experience as a legislator and what did that get us? Very little! Sure, Joel fell into the do no harm category but he also fell into the do noting category. All of you who plan on voting for Lamborn because he is the incumbant and hasn’t done anything wrong should think of that. Those who are voting for Crank should too. Who wants another Hefley in office? Not me!
Doug Lamborn has a much more favorable record as far as I am concerned. Doug listens, and his office staff works hard for the district.
.
touting Dave Petraeus as some kind of great political leader ?
Don’t you recall how he got his current job ?
23 4-star generals were asked to take over in Iraq,
and ramp up the military pressure on the Iraqi population,
to get them to knuckle under to our domination.
23 said NO!
Then Bush started going through the 3-star generals, until he found one willing to go along.
………………………
Why did those 23 men of higher integrity turn down what Dave agreed to ?
Well, for one thing, they weren’t looking for another star.
And for another,
they were not willing to expend many more lives and a lot more money
just to kick the can down the street.
Bush asked them to lead a holding action
in order to preserve his legacy –
even though everyone involved recognized that it would do nothing to solve the bigger problems in Iraq.
the 23 all refused to sell out their subordinates.
Not so with Dave.
Here we are, after the “Surge,”
and Iraq is no closer to stability or ?Victory? or any of the goals that the USA set for it.
But we are 12 months closer to Bush being able to claim:
“Well, we didn’t lose Iraq on MY watch.”
.
a good leader is an effective communicator. In the military, correct me if I’m wrong, but I would think that a leader would have to articulate his orders to his men in a way that they understand and carry out exactly what he says and how to do it. Given the situation, these orders could save lives.
Not also that, but he would also have to answer to his higher ups which means accountability comes into play. I believe that (for the most part) moving into higher ranks is based on merit. And I think the opposite is true, that if you failed at your job, you would be reprimanded, not rewarded, and demoted, not promoted. Again, there’s accountability.
Then I think about the Republican party overall and how it is seriously lacking any real leadership. If the party wants to return to a party of liberty and limited government then its going to take someone with some real conservative principles and someone who can take charge of the party (in the House) to inspire and motivate others to move in that direction.
I think Rayburn, with his military experience in leadership, can help create a rebirth of the conservative coalition within the party. I think that he can help strengthen the conservative core of the party, and being an effective leader, he will be able to communicate the ideas and articulate the principles of the conservative movement to a party that used to be the party of Goldwater and Reagan.
but in the overall, I agree with your comments, GC.
I’ve pointed out here in the days before you came along that the military is the only job where you can fail miserably and follow illegal orders and get promoted. Or, at worst, get retired. Most of the generals that went along with Bush’s order to invade Iraq would have been hung in Nuremburg. But career soldiers gotta flex their muscles, you know. The temptation is too great.
BTW, I’ve read the Nuremburg indictments and Bush and his minions are guilty of the very charges we hanged Germans for.
I’d say that this wouldn’t happen in private enterprise, but it sure does.
What’s written in the indictments? Stuff about knowingly killing civilians, blowing up powerplants and waterworks, etc. etc. Just like Bush and his generals.
Plain as snow in a ski resort.
Completely and totally. I don’t have time to get into this now, and I doubt there would be any benifit in trying to reason with you anyway.
About caring about each other, taking care of one another. Matthew 25.
You are sure are on one mighty high horse, student. And with a lot of learning about life, I suppose.
is that the definition of morals is inextricably linked with party identification. He’d more than endorse your view if it was about a Democrat who’d led the nation into a war that was unpopular with the right. (I have a hard time imagining any war being unpopular with the right…)
My definition of morals comes from my upbringing in the Catholic Church. It wasn’t until my final year in high school that I began to develop any political leanings whatsoever. Party identification is not all that important to me either. I consider myself to be a fervent conservative, and lately I have had many reasons to be upset with the Republican Party.
I was attracted to the Conservative movement because it fit so well with the morals that I had been taught and passionately defended while growing up. My faith and morals lead me to my political affiliation, not the other way around.
And as far as the case for war, I believe that it is a last resort, but oftentimes a most necessary resort. I would never stoop to calling my president and his generals war criminals and comparing them to the Nazis regardless of their Party affiliation. I believe that this type of incendiary rhetoric does more to hurt our country than the parties it targets. It is counterproductive and demoralizing.
Just because I see your moral viewpoint as corrupt, does not mean I think any of you lefties to be bad people (except for Keith Olberman, I’m convinced he is a nasty individual). I just think that you are wrong.
if you don’t like the truth he tells.
Other than abortion and perhaps birth control, I think the Catholic church is substantially left. Human rights, care for the disadvantaged, and all that. Bishop Oscar Romero died at the hands or arch right wing thugs because he was trying to empower the common peasants.
So, what in the Catholic belief system can you possibly find fitting the conservative mold?
“Joke:”
Q: What’s the difference between a conservative and liberal?
A: Oh, fifty, sometimes a hundred years.
Sure the Catholic Church advocates human rights, just as conservatives advocate human rights around the world. Whereas you lefties would rather leave dictators like Sadam, Castro, or Kim in power to kill and opress their own people.
Care for the disadvantage: Through self empowerment, rather than locking the disadvantaged into their situations with endless gov’t handouts and entitlements.
There are two types of Catholics in this country. There are the Northeastern Ted Kennedy Catholics, and the rest of American Catholics who strongly advocate the moral callings of the Church and work to find solutions to the world’s problems rather than pick and chose which issues to support like say, killing babies.
The only Joke here is your moral relativity. But what more can be expected from someone who thinks of Olberman as a great truth teller.
an outpouring of right wing illogical “thinking.”
Please show me where in the bible, anywhere, that Jesus said the way to help people is through empowerment. Show me where the church has been teaching that, anywhere, at any time. I’m not saying it’s not a good idea, I just don’t see where that’s what the church teaches.
Regardless, I can see that you are so narrow in your views, and have so warped the teaching of Jesus that it’s no use talking with you.
BTW, treat you elders with a little more respect and go to your room without supper.
If your side had, we wouldn’t have Guantanamo right now.
Ok, this whole line is based on poor reporting by the Gazette!
Anyone who was at Lamborn’s speech can varify that he clearly said
“…in the political world…you can’t show leadership until you’ve been elected…” The comment was in the specific contexts of elective politics.
Lamborn does not disrespect other forms of leadership!
I wish I had seen this crummy excuse for a Diary sooner to I could refute it with the facts! For shame Gazette and GOPpundit!
While you have every right to your opinion, I believe that Jeff is the least qualified candidate running on nearly every issue.
1. Military Affairs
> Lamborn is a sitting congressman, on armed services committee, highly engaged, security clearance
> Rayburn…don’t need to say much tere
2. Business
> While neither Crank nor Rayburn have had P&L responsibility, Rayburn has managed massive budgets. Crank’s business experience is focused on extracting taxpayer dollars from the government…not my idea of good business
> Lamborn has years of business exp before being elected to state leg.
3. Establishment support
> Crank wins here. He has the most support of the local party establishment
4. Education
> Crank is the least well educated of all candidates running
5. Veterans affairs
> Dogu has a very strong legislative record in CO legislature and in congress, eg vets cemetary for Colorado Springs area
> Rayburn is a veteran himself and can probably discuss these issues with more credibality of all the candidates
> Jeff has clapped the backs of many local veterans, and is grateful that they grabbed a rifle to stand post so he could stay home to play politics for the past 20 years
6. Local issues
> Jeff’s lifetime in CO is a good foundation for a strong understanding of local issues. He may be an excellent candidate for local office