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
30%↑
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%
July 09, 2008 07:01 PM UTC
21 Comments
If so, you’re not allowed to use such a cool login name.
I feel a little bad for Crank these days. I mean, what platform does he have? He’s going to out-conservative Doug Lamborn? That’s like trying to out-Catholic the Pope.
ohh, never mind. I may have confused him with Wesley Mouch. It’s been 40 years since I read the book…
I was just quoting the first line in Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged”. I love that moniker.
Rand had a genius for names. Remember the classic scene where Mr. Thompson is astounded that Galt won’t work for him and sputters: “Don’t you relize I’m offering you WESLEY MOUCH’s job?”
So here is where you have gone wrong… lobbyists are a good and instrumental part of the legislative process. Virtually every interest group, liberal and conservative, use lobbyists to persuade legislators regarding their agenda. What is “bad” is when that position is abused. Nowhere do I see evidence of Crank abusing his job as a lobbyist. Instead I see him doing his job – and doing it well. In fact, your diary demonstrates why we should send Crank to Congress… he is effective.
When Crank is a Representative it will be his job to say “no” to lobbyists who cannot persuade him or who do not reflect the values his district elected him to represent. Also, after talking with Crank his position is not that all earmarks are bad… it’s that we need a break from them to break the bad habits that have formed – on both sides of the isle – on earmarks and how they are used.
Wow, so is this straight from the Crank campaign talking points or what?
http://www.krdo.com/Global/sto…
Lamborn has constantly tried to take credit for things he has not done but others did, such as Senator Allard, who I have understood to be quite pissed with Lamborn’s taking credit for Allard’s efforts. At least KRDO is calling Lamborn out for his twisting and bending the truth. Lamborn’s bald faced lie that he never has and never will support a tax increase of any kind is one that he has not yet changed his website to correct. Will he ever? I doubt it.
So I’m to understand that, since in 15 years of elected office, Doug Lamborn has never voted for a tax increase, that he’s pro-tax?
How many tax increases has Crank voted against in his ZERO years of elected experience. What was that? Zero. Oh, that’s impressive.
Crank’s just upset because his history of supporting tax increases while with the Chamber caught up to him last election.
That is the Truth.
If all you have for your misleading claim is a Kansas newspaper article from the time period when Disco was the rage, You got Bupkis Bud.
.
I’d like to read that Kansas Disco newspaper article myself.
.
So let me get this straight, Jeff Crank, who has made his entire campaign about being against “earmarks,” would make an excellent Congressman because he is a raging hypocrite??? In the words of Jeff Crank, “Earmarks are special projects inserted into the budget by members of Congress. They skirt the normal budget procedures and competitive bidding process. They are the hallmark of budgetary irresponsibility.”
See his quote for yourself:
http://www.jeffcrank.com/jeff-…
GOPpundit, being that you’re on Crank’s campaign, would you care to explain how this statement shows he isn’t against all earmarks? Obviously he isn’t, I followed the steps listed above and saw his lobbying disclosure forms. It must be nice to earn $47,000 on one lobbying job. You can try and spin things however you want but the fact of the matter is that Jeff Crank was a registered lobbyist who made hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying for earmarks. To claim he is against earmarks is flat out dishonest.
I haven’t said much lately, but like John Galt, this recent ad really is rubbing me the wrong way. For Crank to claim he so adamant about eliminating earmarks after actively working to solicit earmarks is complete and utter hypocrisy. Crank’s job, the money he might be using this very day to fund his campaign, was earned by lobbying for earmarks!! I hope the voters get wind of this, spread the word concerned citizens.
This hypocrisy serves to underscore my, and many other’s belief that Crank is a conniving, sore-loser who is more qualified to work FOR Lamborn, than to run against him.
I really don’t think that Crank is even qualified to work for Lamborn. Shine his boots maybe, but that’s about it.
That was a pretty good shot. I was going to make some smartass remark about whether you wanted a spit shine but the old buck sergeant in me said no politician deserves that honor.
I guess my rhetoric got a little heated there. It’ll happen off and on during the political season. I love your anecdote about no politician deserving a spit shine. Truer words were quite likely never spoken -present company excepted of course 🙂
.
how you walked me through the website so I could find exactly what you were referring to.
Thanks
.
The definition of an earmark is diverting taxpayer funds to special projects outside of the normal competitive and merit-based review process.
None of the projects that Jeff Crank sought funding for were earmarks. They were subjected to the normal competitive and merit-based review process. In other words, the Department of Defense wanted the projects or the projects were in the President’s budget. Jeff’s job was to reinforce the desire of colorado businesses to see that those projects were funded.
Jeff is against the corrupt process of dropping projects into big bills at the last minute without the benefit of debate or dicusssion.
Congress has to go cold turkey to get off earmarks and that’s what Jeff’s pledge does…Puts Congress on a cold turkey diet from earmarks.
Jeff has not been a registered lobbyist since 2007. All of Jeff’s clients have been Colorado companies or companies doing business in Colorado and each of them deals with military issues in some way.
One of the companies Jeff proudly represented is Air Methods Corporation, http://www.airmethods.com, of Englewood, Colorado. Air methods provides air medical and aerospace products to commercial and military customers.
Air Methods was interested in seeing that funding was maintained for the HH-60L medivac helicoper for which Air Methods manufactures the interiors. This is a helicopter regularly supported by the U.S. Suregeon General. The HH-60L medivac helicopters are deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq. The HH-60L is pressed in to service everyday including involvement in the notable rescue of ABC “World News Tonight” co-anchor Bob Woodruff and cameraman Doug Vogt. The HH-60L also transported Jessica Lynch to safety.
Jeff’s small business is called Rocky Mountain Governemnt Relations and it earned on average $26,750 per year after it was founded in 1998, far short of the millions that other government relation companies bring in. The median income in Congressional District 5 is estimated at $45,000.
Jeff will defend the right of any citizen to exercise thier First Amendment Right to free speech and thier right to petition thier elected officials and thier government.
Those are the facts. Please stick to them.
So what you are saying is that Jeff Crank is a Lobbyist. I dont think there is anything wrong with being a lobbyist, but why does he always call himself a “small businessman” and not a small lobbyist?